Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 November	16 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 Delete. Article has already been deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeycare Foundation[edit]

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

There are no refs so no notability can be asserted. Reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but wait til the author has had time to fix it. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - an advertisement for a for-profit business created by a single purpose account. It reads like an advertisement because the text is largely copied from the company's own website (1, 2). Citobun (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure advertisement page. Although there are some hits of it being mentioned in some sources but still all are mostly passing by refs. If notable could be re-written from scratch. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as such as there's no better improvement here at this time and it's an obvious G11 with ample consensus here. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 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 speedily deleted by GB fan per CSD A7 (article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Bardot[edit]

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

Fails policy: WP:PORNBIO. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Notability not even asserted. No claim for WP:PORNBIO. No reliable source coverage. Tagged for CSD A7. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Gene93k. Just another actor with no significant credits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:45, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winter (novel)[edit]

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

Nominated with the following WP policies in mind: WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:GNG, WP:BKCRIT // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author is notable and the book series is notable. I think this book is likely notable, too. Nonetheless, I'm having a little difficulty finding reviews, perhaps because it was just released. Here's what I've got so far: [1] and [2] from USA Today, [3] from The Seattle Times, [4] from MTV, [5] from Bustle. I added some of these to the article already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book may not have a ton of reviews, but it did land on two notable bestseller lists, USA Today and the WSJ. Given that she placed so highly on those lists, it's likely that she'll place on the NYT's list as well. I think that this, paired with the reviews it did receive and the overall coverage for the book, is enough to establish notability for the work. Also a fairly good sign of notability is that the book is in over 400 libraries per Worldcat. While technically not something that is considered to be a RS on Wikipedia, this many holdings is a good sign that a work would very likely pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep per Tokyogirl79's work to improve the article: well passes our threshold for children's literature, Sadads (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author and series, more reviews will be coming out soon. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, WP:BKCRIT and WP:NBOOK. Article reflects this thanks to improvements by user:NinjaRobotPirate and user:Tokyogirl79, has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly, BookList and School Library Journal amongst others. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh, I forgot about this AfD. I was going to come back and look for more sources or see if anyone else found them. Anyway, the improvements looks good to me. I think notability has been established. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 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 Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn with no discussion in the interim) —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

阿不都卡德尔·加拉里丁[edit]

Withdrawn by Nominator because: notenglish tag was added, which has a seperate policy for recommending deletion. If the article is not translated within two weeks, it will be considered again. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Written in foreign language, therefor does not qualify for speedy deletion albeit does not belong in the English Wikipedia. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 22:01, 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 speedy deleted by Versageek. G4 (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife Sessions[edit]

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

If you look through the edit summaries and the talk page you will find this is being built as a birthday gift for the guy in the show by a friend. Can't see how it passes WP:GNG I now see this is the third time the page has been created. This time SALT it. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is a clear conflict of interest in the creation of this page by, not just a friend, but by the business partner of one of the characters in the series.[6] The page has been deleted at AfD twice now, so it's likely that the page is deletable under CSD G4. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is sufficiently different for me not to use G4 (more text, and the cast has increased by one, not to mention the length of the beard...). I can't see any notability either in the article or in ten pages of ghits (a lot of which were about totally different subjects anyway). Peridon (talk) 16:26, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks[edit]

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

Most of these quotes are redundant and warrant no place in an article. Delete per WP: NOTNEWS. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable responses to a major world event. WP:NOTNEWS states that "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" AusLondonder (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be a discussion in a centralized place (I'm sure there is an appropriate noticeboard) that covers the general "concept and content", not individual AfDs for every article of this type, which takes time and effort to address individually. LjL (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What has changed since the last nomination? Notability isn't temporary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree notability isn't temporary for Wikipedia's purposes. PeRshGo (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong per se with this article. It's well-sourced and the global reactions to such terrible events alone are often widely noted by the press. It boils down to WP:NOTPAPER: although it might in hindsight seem almost silly to meticulously document all contemporary reactions, they are still clearly notable, and since hard disks space is so cheap, why not? --hydrox (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is and will never be more than a list of about a hundred very similarly worded expressions of condolence and/or outrage. The whole article can be summarised into a single paragraph on the parent article. Mirroring the argument I've just made here, this is a long, boring Wikiquote page. Aspirex (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Having seen that there are a few of these "international reactions" pages up for nomination, I think it's worth putting forward that this one is by far the least notable: the attack was an entirely domestic Norwegian incident with no international consequence, so the international reaction to it must surely be of only passing importance. At least the 2012 US presidental election or the MH17 shooting were events with some international repercussions. Aspirex (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Passes WP:GNG, major attacks comes with reactions which is totally appropriate for its own article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *per passing WP:GNG. Why nominate clearly notable articles?--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 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 keep. Consensus was for keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown[edit]

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

Unimportant responses to a minor event. Fails WP: GNG. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't agree was a minor event. It received significant coverage globally and had serious diplomatic consequences. Highly notable and information any credible encyclopaedia would include. AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a minor event, and WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:POINTy, seeking to get a clear consensus about these articles and their concept, User:LjL. AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - long and involved coverage over months and months. Clearly notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international news events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of Wikipedia:Speedy keep do you make this under? If not, your !vote should simply be a standard keep !vote. Stickee (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The voter has his right to express his vote in any form he likes especially since a reason is given. It is up to the closing admin or non-admin to decide if the closing is done based on speedy keep or not. WP:CONSENSUS. Optakeover ^(Talk) 10:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Im not seeing any convincing argument for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW close please... this was not a minor event but a major diplomatic incident (as well as a massacre). For this reason the international response is very important. cf. the Paris example where we already know, more or less, what everyone is going to say. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep' I agree with the above, can this really be considered a minor event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: erm, you already !voted above... LjL (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thanks for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were looking for Template:Merge, but... Edit: this was started because another page had been nominated for deletion; the difference was that it was probably nominated while still new and short. This article is of questionable value when it doesn't even mention the recordings and transcripts released by Ukraine in a large number of languages, in "reaction" to the crash. Still, actually merging is too much work, so keep 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've voted delete for the US presidental election and Norwegian attack 'international reaction' pages, but for this particular one I think there is some encyclopedic value – in particular, the fact that it lists many countries responses, the help they sent, the actions they called on the UN to take, etc. – that's encyclopedic enough for me, as it supports the main topic. (cf. the two I voted delete for, which were just a long list of inconsequential diplomatic quotations which did nothing to build on the main topic) Aspirex (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked, but I couldn't find it (I did see that someone "deeply condoled the crash"). If there's something there, why couldn't it be moved to the relevant section of the main article? Also, why would it become a better topic if more countries are listed? I'm sure every one of these events could in principle have as many entries as there are countries in the world. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is a total of slightly more than 200, nothing too tragic. LjL (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - With this article, Malaysia Flight 17 was a major accident which is far from a 'minor accident'. A minor accident would be a scratch or something, but loosing an aircraft with all lives aboard is a major accident and it certainly passes WP:GNG, international responses is a fair topic to cover on Wikipedia especially after major tragic events, there is no reason for the AFD and a WP:SNOW. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - countries commenting on international incidents is fairly standard diplomatic stuff mostly with no relevance to the acutal events but just polite behaviour, this was created to keep this non-relevant stuff out of the main article and is probably time to ditch it as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Are you kidding me, nominator? MH17 is a very notable event as an air crash that has received extensive media coverage, and one which was highly controversial. Definitely passes WP:GNG. Also, this page is definitely required for list of international reactions, a lengthy article to prevent the already-lengthy MH17 page from becoming longer. Optakeover ^(Talk) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to note that notability is not inherited and what is a load of dross dropped from the main article doesnt make this notable. Also it is highly unlikely that this political polite stuff would ever make it back into the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article relates to the subject that is talked about in the main article, that is to me where the notability lies. And your second point is a good point; that's why speedy keep. Optakeover ^(Talk) 19:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm afraid the force is not strong in this one, Obi-Wan. WP:GNG in its own right is easily met. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:11, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the war in Donbass[edit]

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

So many excessive quotes, many from unimportant countries (in relation to the war) is very unencyclopedic. Notability for a great many of these quotes is highly questionable. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to wars and crises, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major world event with significant diplomatic consequences. What is an "important" country, User:Kenobi5487? Could you name them? AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A war is a major event, notability also isn't temporary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let me get this straight: I had no idea we had this many such articles. What is the rationale? Do you realize that this means that every single historical event now gets an "Reactions to..." event? and if you manage to get enough quotes together, you can have a "Reactions to..." every single hit record. Or TV show. There are no criteria for inclusion in such articles, except for "it's verified"--in other words, it's indiscriminate. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, Comparing a war with significant diplomatic consequences to a television programme is unbecoming as is suggesting a "hit record" is a "historical event". AusLondonder (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing the events, only the indiscriminate nature of the responses to the events. And I'm not the one comparing hit records to historical events: if you compare the amount of space devoted to one- (or two-) hit wonders (and their singles, and their discographies, and their List of Awards, and their List of Compositions) to the space devoted to truly meaningful persons and events on a grander scale, the scale of history, you'll see that Wikipedia's recentism and pop culture are responsible for trivializing the historical events. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, Drmies. Indeed, the main reason why this article was created was to get these endless and rather pointless quotes out of the main War in Donbass article, which had become bloated with them. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 19 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 2013 North Korean nuclear test. Sam Walton (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2013 North Korean nuclear test[edit]

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

Article is merely a list of quotes from politicians with little result on a minor event. Fail notability guidelines. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. May or may not pass WP:GNG, but reactions to stuff like this is generally of little impact, since this wasn't really something that elicited great emotion. NK nuke tests happen often, unfortunately. epic genius (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In this particular case, this one is part of an ongoing issue with North Korea, and nuclear weapons. Merge this one with 2013 North Korean nuclear test. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no need for a stand alone article on that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it might be the last one since a later one was cancelled. If they're routine, they're not important 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this is little more than a thesaurus entry for "strongly condemned". Can easily be compiled into a single paragraph in 2013 North Korean nuclear test which details any specific actions stronger or more formal than voicing strong condemnation and summarising the rest into a blanket condemnation; breaking it out into individual similar quotes is adding no value. Aspirex (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with 2013 North Korean nuclear test, per epic genius and Aspirex.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état[edit]

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

Notability of the International reactions to this relativley minor event is questionable at best. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article. Considering the content of this article, ~~which comprises mainly communist countries saying that participants to go to prison and republics saying otherwise,~~ this fails WP:GNG. If this was violent, that's another matter. epic genius (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epicgenius Just a tip... AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tip about what? epic genius (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)~~ Oh, I get it. epic genius (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epicgenius ;) AusLondonder (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comparing it to another recent 'coup', it seems more controversial and therefore deserving of more information, which is better contained in a separate article. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a similar sort of article to International recognition of Kosovo or other countries, as it details the formal diplomatic position of different countries, and that I'd say is certainly encyclopedic. (I can't help but wonder whether this article is out of date, though; it lists everyone's reactions in 2009 but doesn't seem to follow through to reaction to future events. Probably needs a bit of work to improve). Aspirex (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Responses to a historically notable and encyclopaedic incident. AusLondonder (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list-type article, and as such, will probably never be among the best articles on Wikipedia. However, the event was unquestionably notable enough that even the diplomatic waves it produced were themselves notable. As long as everything in this article is well-sourced, it's a keeper. Homunq (࿓) 12:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per other "Keep" arguments above. Satisfies WP:GNG. --Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:17, 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to 2008 Tibetan unrest[edit]

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

Notability in question. A merge with the main article dicussing important countries would likely be the best solution. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article. Considering the content of this article, ~~which comprises mainly communist countries saying that participants to go to prison and republics saying otherwise, this fails WP:GNG.~~ Other countries' participation is limited to condemning or praising the protests. epic genius (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, much of what you have written is wrong User:Epicgenius. For example most countries supporting China such as Fiji, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia and Singapore are not communist. In addition, all communist countries are republics, such as the People's Republic of China or Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many countries criticising China, such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom aren't republics but monarchies. Just because the US is a capitalist republic does not mean that is how the world works. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that it depends on which types of leadership it is. However, some of the most prominent opponents of the unrest are dictatorships/communist countries/juntas, of the type that also do internet censorship of things they don't like. epic genius (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communism does not = dictatorship and dictatorship does not = communism. Pinochet was very much a capitalist dictator while Hugo Chávez was a democratic communist. Additionally, republics can be dictatorships eg China or Syria while monarchies can be democratic such as Australia, the Netherlands or the UK. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that. Some communist democrats or capitalist dictators may very well support the freedom to have unrest. I'm just commenting on the most common countries that criticize it. epic genius (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What countries are "important" that would be discussed in the main article in the event of a merger, user:Kenobi5487 AusLondonder (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG and is of historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable reactions to a major incident, especially in the lead-up to the 2008 Olympics. Important encyclopaedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I deem the nomination WP:POINTY per this, the subject is notable, and the reactions sourced. LjL (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AusLondonder, —Мандичка, and Shawn in Montreal. Easily satisfies WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not me! I didn't cast a !vote. Just listed it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shorten and merge into 2008 Tibetan unrest - A POV fork as per WP:POVSPLIT. STSC (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on what makes this a POV fork, as opposed to a simple WP:SPINOUT? LjL (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just give you one example, the article has a whole section for that Tibetan guy from CTA talking about beating up people is not violence. And then there is extensive content on pro-Tibetan protests. The overall undertone of the article is very much pro-Tibetan; the article is clearly a POV fork. STSC (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and well sourced Lipsquid (talk) 19:41, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the September 11 attacks[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Possibly better to merge with main article. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the notability is far from questionable, and merging is a matter of a merging discussion, not an AfD (although I probably wouldn't merge, due to length). I note also that this was an arguably WP:POINTY nomination, see this. LjL (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have criticised the concept of these articles now are !voting speedy keep. You're a wonder. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable responses to a major world event. Meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep' - I have a hard time believing on the nominators part that they did any research. There are numerous books dealing with the reaction to 9/11. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Books include:[7], [8], should I go on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A series of WP:POINTy noms with zero WP:BEFORE done at all by the nom. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As evidenced by the essay linked above, deletion discussions on this and similar topics have the potential for proper debate free of precedent and prejudice. However, in this case I think neither side has done much research. The nominator, Kenobi5487, wants us to believe this should be merged with "the main article" without specifying what article he means (is it September 11 attacks, or Aftermath of the September 11 attacks?). The sources provided by Knowledgekid87 (which are not cited in the article) seem to deal with the institutional and military response that is discussed in an entirely other article: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks. One more thing, and something Fences and windows' essay should address, is that reactions like this seldom have a WP:LASTING effect. Case in point is the condolences presented by Saddam Hussein of Iraq as documented (~~though unsourced~~) in the nominated article. The legacy of these and other condolences are generally overshadowed by the more tangible aftermath of events. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or conversely, one could say that because of the specific aftermath there, Hussein's condolences are all the more interesting. LjL (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major world history event with notable world leaders reactions.--MONGO 04:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snow keep per EpicGenius, AusLondonder, and Wikimandia. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep September 11 attacks? Yeah, I think I've heard of them. FFS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't automatically become non-notable either, though. Which part of WP:Notability do they fail (especially reactions to 9/11, though the question could hold for reactions to less notable events)? The specific WP:Indiscriminate section doesn't seem to provide an example that applies, and on the entire lengthy page, I'm not finding one really suitable "what Wikipedia is not" for it, when looking at their provided explanations. WP:NOTQUOTE is the only thing I see that remotely applies, and only when reactions are excessively given in the form of quotations. LjL (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it's of any value at all to document that President X of country Y said that the events of 9/11 were ... well, fill in the blank. Responses come in two flavors: "responses" in terms of military action and political decisions, and those are of course relevant. The other "response", the verbal response, comes in two kinds--words of support, anger, sympathy, and such, and the rare support for the terrorist attack. I don't see why those words, which in the end really don't mean very much, should have an article devoted to them. As far as I'm concerned, that's common sense.

Not everything that can be verified is worth writing about, and a slavish dependence on "it's verified" means, in the end, the death of editorial discretion and common sense. Moreover, it steers us toward content that's severely slanted to what "the media" think is worthwhile repeating--which is typically that which happens in the developed world with a 24/7 news cycle and people who are very much like the typical en-Wikipedia contributor. That is, if all we go by is newspaper and website reports, which is what we're doing in articles like this one, a suicide attack in Lebanon is much less important than a suicide attack in Paris. Guess what, a comparison of the sizes of November 2015 Paris attacks (over 100k) and 2015 Beirut bombings (17k) bears that out, and more than half of the Beirut article actually consists of "responses". I mean, if that isn't a representational kind of bias I don't know what is: we're clearly suggesting that the one is more important than the other. We're not the news; we should take the longer view, and that's why we should not devote our time and energy to articles like this one. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the reactions from this tragic event was a major event with widespread coverage and in today's society. It easily passes WP:GNG and this is a an extreme WP:SNOW. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Wholeheartedly Human nature wants to know 'who's for us' and 'who's against us.' Bias against, in this case, Muslims rears its ugly head especially when provoked. In a better world, this page wouldn't be necessary, 14 years later. In a better world 9/11 would have no meaning. We are not living in a better world. A great research tool. Where else is someone going to find this information next year, or decades from now? World reaction to the 11/13 Paris attacks should end this discussion. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when the nominator says "Questionable notability. Possibly better to merge with main article," literally all they had to do in the first place was ask that on the talk page. It's that simple rather than AFD'ing multiple articles questioning notability even though they pass WP:GNG and are very much a WP:SNOW case. They've been AFD'ed in the past as well with a large volume for keep and if people can remember an event from any amount of years ago, then its pretty notable especially when there is high casualties involved. Besides reactions like these aren't like memoirs of famous dead people, they're unique and offer help and security from supporting organizations and nations. Honestly I would be very happy if other nations recognized what has just happened to you, and offer to help fight whatever caused it. Just remember before nominating an article for AFD, just think as see what can be changed and ask questions if needed. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Didn't even need to think about it (much). General Ization ^Talk 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SpK. 9/11. 'nuff said. Also, list page needed to prevent an already extensive September 11 page from being even longer. Optakeover ^(Talk) 17:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep -- the 9-11 attack was such a momentous event that it is entirely right to have multiple articles on it, including this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 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. joe decker ^talk 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Singh[edit]

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

No indication of importance. No pertinent references. Promotional tone. Nick Number (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, lacks NPOV, lacks references/sources - Ne ll is 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.– Gilliam (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: horrendous article. Fails for so many reasons. Doesn't make sense. Very poorly written. No sources. No notability. Has existed for 5 years and has only just been changed from an ever worse offering. Rayman60 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the search engines show there appear to be several people of this name who have received coverage. None appear to be the subject of this article. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 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. joe decker ^talk 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hoodoo[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSIC Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Faygoluvers doesn't look like a reliable source to me. This article is also substantiated by this source as well. I don't think either article related to the Big Hoodoo is notable and not finding anything to back them up through search. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - searches turned up nothing but mentions. I agree with Tangledupinbleu chs that Faygoluvers does not appear to be a reliable site - looks like the info there is posted by "members", and there is no editorial process listed which I can find. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 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. joe decker ^talk 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone (play)[edit]

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

This play was only performed in one outdoor theatre for some portion of their season. The references are all routine mentions in the media resulting from the company promoting themselves. That includes the Globe and Mail mention, which is actually written about the company not the play as the subject of the article. Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. 2601:C7:C202:F320:D034:B4C2:7BBA:F5D8 (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Coverage not significant. AusLondonder (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like we have only a narrow amount of news coverage... over something that doesn't appear to be notable in concept either. It's not like we have some kind of dramatic piece that's likely to be significantly repeated here. To be frank, even the name of the play is painfully generic to the point that it makes things difficult to search for more information on it. I would just delete the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:14, 25 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. Consensus is based on the validity of arguments not voting. Early votes for deletion shows a lack of due diligence in source searching. The rationale for the AfD has been lack of notability due to lack of sources. Now that sources have been provided the rationale for deletion is invalid. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 10:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hildy Brooks[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, sourced entirely to unreliable sources like IMDb, tv.com and a WordPress blog. While there is enough substance here to suggest that she would be keepable if the article were sourced properly, WP:NACTOR does not grant any actor an entitlement to keep an article that's this poorly and unreliably sourced. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation of a new version that's based on proper reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any reliable sources that do more than mention her in passing. Thparkth (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The creator was unaware of WP:RS criteria and didn't know that self-published sources aren't accepted. --Drm310 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found links at Books, browsers and Highbeam but nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's a working actress, God bless her, but not a notable one. She had the lead in a 1971 film, A Fable, but that was not a notable film. She had a significant role in 1973's The Iceman Cometh (reprising her role in the earlier TV version), and that was clearly a notable film. She also had a role in Islands in the Stream, which appears to be significant. She had a lead role in Actor, but that was a tv film of questionable notability. Another significant role in The Color of Evening, but that also is a film of questionable notability. In my opinion, she just barely misses WP:NACTOR, and searches did not return enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Ryan, Ann L. (1997-02-26). "'Rabbi' Looks at Faith, Tolerance". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  The line is from Hildy Brooks' play "The Day the Rabbi Lied." The thought is from the Talmud.
  ...Brooks' one-woman show is the story of a woman named Sippie, an actress in Los Angeles who has been called in to substitute-teach a class on Jewish Spirituality -- this one about the ritual of lighting Sabbath candles.
  ...
  Brooks (and her character, Sippie) became interested in studying Judaism after accepting the role of a Hasidic rabbi's wife in a movie. Mere research became something more, including a search for her father, a man who kept his faith private -- even from his own family.
  Brooks performance is matter-of-fact: She's a smart actress, and so she allows the emotion to come from the story she is telling, and she doesn't push it. In fact, she becomes less dramatic in appearance as the show progresses -- she makes her entrance in heels, a swingy, short skirt and a to-die-for patterned velvet jacket, then changes into a long skirt, flats and a head scarf -- what an Orthodox Jewish woman would wear for modesty's sake.
2. Quintana, Hugo (2003-02-24). "Cartas en la distancia". La Opinión. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  A veces en teatro lo que importa no son tanto las palabras, sino esos mágicos momentos de vida que se pueden crear en escena, y Reunion in Praguetiene muchos de ellos, elaborados con transparencia por el director Jack Betts y los actores Hildy Brooks y Jim Antonio.
  ...
  Hildy Brooks merece especial atención no sólo por su valorable interpretación, sino porque es la autora de la obra y a la vez es ella la misma actriz cuya vida se replantea en el paso de su correspondencia a la escena.
  Su labor, sustentada por la ternura que transita a través de todo el texto, choca a veces con el dilema —para un actor— de representarse a sí mismo, y si bien se la ve por momentos actuar sólo con desenvoltura, como en casa, es capaz de lograr hondura emocional en los mejores momentos de la pieza, convirtiéndolos en escenas clave.
3. "Brooks, Husband Work Together on Play". Plainview Daily Herald. Associated Press. 2003-02-17. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Actress Hildy Brooks and her husband-actor, Jim Antonio, have put a new twist on art imitating life.
  Antonio is playing the part of Brooks' one-time lover, Czech sculptor Olbram Zoubek, in her play about their decades-long, long-distance relationship.
  ...
  Brooks wrote the one act "Reunion in Prague," about her brief 1967 meeting in Prague with Zoubek while she was on a movie shoot in his sculpture garden, and their ensuing 25-year relationship. Over the years they exchanged romantic letters and artwork as they shared their views on art and philosophy in a relationship that spanned America's politically turbulent 1960s and the rise and fall of communism in the former Czechoslovakia.
  Antonio knew about the relationship and even encouraged his wife to return to Prague to catch up in person with Zoubek. Brooks described the brief reunion as disappointing in her play.
4. Kleiner, Dick (1965-01-20). "Show Beat: And now it's the mayor". Redlands Daily Facts. p. 18. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Mrs. Christides will be played by Hildy Brooks. At least that's her name now. It used to be Hilda Brawner, and under that name she did good things off-Broadway and on New York television. It seems that her old name has much more character than the new name, but that's the nomenclature business.
5. "Satire Is Topic for New Group". San Mateo Times. 1963-03-27. p. 31. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Hilda Brawner, in addition to performing on Broadway in Sweet Bird of Youth, was featured in a dozen television shows including Armstrong Theatre, Naked City, The Defenders; member of The Compass Players, Chicago.
6. "The Subject Was Roses play". Lebanon Daily News. 1965-05-01. p. 17. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  James Antonio of Othello and actress Hilda Brawner (wed at City Hall last week) must shorten the honeymoon. She has a London contract.
7. Langley, Frank (1963-06-07). "TV Breeds No Stars". The Decatur Herald. p. 34. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  The potential stars of television are seen again and again. They pop up in a nurse's uniform on one show and perhaps an hour later as a fallen female in a murder mystery. Their image becomes confused with the multiple roles they play, and the audience soon accepts the mass actors and actresses--but never stars.
  Hilda Brawner is a name largely unknown in television. Yet this talented young lady has been starred in such shows as the DuPont Show of the Week, The Defenders, Naked City and a dozen others. When I ask her how it feels to be a TV star, she remarked, "I'll let you know when I become one. And that won't be through TV."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hildy Brooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the sources discovered by Cunard. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with grateful thanks to Cunard for hie true due diligence showing (since the earlier delete !votes were made) that the topic meets WP:BASIC. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:09, 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 Procedural close, as this has already been redirected to The Challenge (TV series). That said, this is really not a great redirect (28th Season of what now?), and might be deleted at RFD if someone sends it there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season 28 TBD[edit]

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

Looks like a duplicate article, The Challenge: Rivals III, was created by another user, shortly AFTER this one was created. This article was to remain as TBD until a valid source for MTV's 28th season of The Challenge became available. DPH1110 (talk) 18:38, 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement and a stronger notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge 11[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a bridge, which makes no real assertion of notability — as written, it just asserts that the structure exists. Thousands upon thousands of other bridges exist in the world without being notable enough to warrant encyclopedias about them — while "more notable than the norm" exceptions certainly and obviously do exist, no reliable source coverage has been shown here to demonstrate that this bridge should be considered one of them. (See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dain City Railroad Bridge.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bridge is historic. The bridge was the site of the groundbreaking for the Welland Canal; see this page about the bridge and this photo of the historic marker. Here is another page written specifically about the bridge. The economic and social impact of this bridge and the canal are discussed in this book. The lack of notable information compiled to date for the WP particle does not mean that this bridge, which is over 80 years old, is not notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the onus is on the article to properly substantiate and reliably source the topic's notability right off the top. An article which just asserts that the topic exists, and provides no demonstration of notability at all, is not entitled to stick around just because it might be improvable — it doesn't have to be an FA class article right off the top by any means, but it does have to at least contain a basic claim of notability, and one or two reliable sources to demonstrate the accuracy of that claim of notability, right from the very moment that the article exists at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain WP:NEXIST which states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Why doesn't that apply here? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article isn't even saying anything about the bridge that would constitute a claim of notability — mere existence is not the same thing. There is a difference between an inadequately sourced article that at least provides a reason why its topic would be considered notable, and one which contains neither sourcing nor any actual claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I need some explanation to understand your position. It seems that you are saying the opposite of WP:ARTN, which says "Article content does not determine notability." Also, you must understand that people have different perspectives. From my perspective, the statement in the nominated version of the article that this a movable bridge built in 1930 is enough to constitute a claim of notability. A two-hundred foot span is nothing today, but in the thirties it was still quite an engineering accomplishment. Movable bridges are still quite scarce and are being removed faster than being built these days. Add in the fact that the bridge has been kept operational for eighty-plus years and yes, the subject is notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any article on Wikipedia always has to contain at least a basic explanation of why the topic is or should be considered eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Once that's done, then "article content does not determine notability" kicks in, in the sense that once basic notability has been properly covered off we can no longer delete an article just for failing to be better and more substantial than it already is — but that statement does not mean that anyone can just create an article which just asserts that its topic exists, and then use ARTN as an exemption from having to clarify why an encyclopedia should actually bother documenting its existence. For example, "The Flapjack Diner is a restaurant in Palookaville, the end, no sources" would not get to claim keepability because ARTN. It's certainly still possible that such an article could be salvaged with better sources — and I'm now going to withdraw this nomination since improved sourcing and a better claim of notability has now been shown here — but ARTN does not constitute a "get out of AFD free" card for an article if there isn't at least a basic and sourced claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, in the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub with no references, but it was created only a week ago by a new editor. The bridge seems to be notable, sources already cited and The Welland Canals and Their Communities, Engineering Journal, Volume 20 and Marine Investigation Report M01C0054 provide enough information for an article. Peter James (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 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 speedy delete. WP:G5 Sock of Vasili-vorobiev NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian bloggers[edit]

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

Listing of Belarusian bloggers that's essentially a duplicate of Category:Belarusian bloggers. The text is copy-pasted from the articles included in that category. clpo13_(talk) 16:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think WP:Summary Style would be more appropriate. Siuenti (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G12, plus vandalism and WP:SOCK by the article creator! MarkYabloko 17:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC), 18:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure of any other "list of (nationality) bloggers" so I'm not sure the point, as of course it's not comprehensive and there must be thousands of bloggers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point would be to give an overview of notable Belarussian bloggers. Siuenti (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting to merge those other articles to here? —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a sentence or two from each, summary style. Siuenti (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it down but I still think it's better off simply as a category. A separate summary article would need to be kept in sync with the main articles. clpo13_(talk) 20:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clpo13. If any of the individuals listed are notable per WP:BIO then they should have their own articles (and the majority of them do, the contents of which have been copied verbatim into this article). We already have Category:Belarusian bloggers to aggregate them together, I don't see any additional value being added by this article. If the article is to be kept, it should be re-titled to "List of Belarusian bloggers", but I don't see any other precedent to encourage keeping it, even in this manner. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why Category:Bloggers by nationality would need a parent article. Now, this could be a section in an article on Blogging in Belarus, if it existed (see Category:Blogging by country). Not much to salvage, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing convincing of keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 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 Delete -- GB fan 11:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loudspeaker_Design_Cookbook[edit]

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

This is an article about a specialty trade paperback that contains nothing more than a table of contents and hasn't had significant activity since it was created in 2007. It looks suspiciously spammy in nature. Remember that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, nor is it a catalog. Rhombus (talk) 15:09, 15 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 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty sure this doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). No citations. Not even a summary. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all reasonings above. Rayman60 (talk) 01:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McEwen[edit]

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

BLP article of a CEO. Can't seem to determine why he is notable. Reads like he wrote it, very promotional language. Article has been on the go since early 2011, but sources are mix of blog, broken links, and links to pages that don't assert notability. I think it fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG scope_creep 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs referencing improvement and rewriting for tone, but the strongest notability claim here, having been named a Member of the Order of Canada, is one that gets a person over the bar if the article is written and sourced properly. Keep and flag for refimprove and tone cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as Books, News, browsers and Highbeam all found noticeable links and the Order Award may also be convincing of keeping. Notifying past AfDer DGG (it's amusing I even thought of notifying you anyway and here I noticed you at that AfD ). SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - one of, if not the foremost authorities on gold commodities in the world today. Clearly meets WP:BASIC, with the broad exposure throughout international media. Even articles which are primarily interviews (and as such, shouldn't be used for notability), usually have more in-depth coverage of him preceding the interview, than I've seen in other standalone citations, such as this. Add to that the Canadian honor, and it appears to be an easy decision. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 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. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sum Ying Fung[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. The world's oldest individual by nation hasn't been considered sufficient notable before. The only sources here are WP:ROUTINE obituaries you would find. The problem is that the article alleges (without sources) that those WP:RS are inaccurate without evidence of that allegation. Either, her claim can be debunked by a reliable source and thus the sources here aren't reliable as to these facts and she isn't notable or her claim is valid based on these reliable sources but the only sources here are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Controversial I expect but I removed the hints that her claim isn't valid. As noted, there are only the three reliable sources provided that assert her birthdate of 1899 and absent a reliable source debunking it, it should be treated as a WP:FRINGE theory that she actually wasn't born in 1899. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gender bias is real and is a problem. 166.171.123.191 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. There are no policy-based arguments to be made that either the age is, per se notable, nor that this person, who lacks WP:SIGCOV has met the requirements of WP:GNG. Even if they had, WP:NOPAGE counsels that, rather than a stand-alone article, inclusion in a list might be appropriate. Gender bias, raised above, is not a factor here. David in DC (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not dying for one century doesn't actually make you notable, it just makes you really old.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PERMASTUB, WP:NOPAGE. "At the claimed age" -- don't we know??? EEng (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mrs Fung received some coverage when she became the oldest living person in Canada - detailed biography; short coverage. When she died 11 months later, there was a lot of coverage too. In particular, this detailed biography in Chinese compelled me to think we should have an article on her. Der yck C. 13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the NOPAGE and PERMASTUB arguments. Your recent edits have added nothing but pedestrian life details to the article (other than the Chinese Exclusion Act bit, which could easily be accommodated in a list minibio.) EEng (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we simply disagree on the applicability of PERMASTUB and NOPAGE. My argument is that there is already enough ~~notable~~Der yck C. 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC) biographical content in existing reliable sources that will be too much to fit into a listbio. Personally, I'd consider her being smuggled out of Beijing in 1989 at the age of 90 to be more significant than the Chinese Exclusion Act, but that isn't the point. In a sense, all biographies are "pedestrian life details". It is the extent of biographical coverage in reliable sources, not some arbitrary criterion for "importance", that determines notability. Der yck C. 15:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing notability (which is one question) and article content. Notability is not the test for article content, so "notable biographical content" makes no sense. "Barred from the US in 18xx because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, she was later smuggled into the US by..." would fit nicely in a minibio or list, and the rest is unimportant. EEng (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the separation between notability and content. I apologise for the redundancy. My argument still stands though - whether a subject should be covered on Wikipedia, and whether the subject deserves its own article, both depend on the concept of notability, which in turn depends on the the availability of reliable sources. Importance doesn't come into the question directly. I think your one-line summary biography misunderstood Fung's life story. They are completely separate life events which will be better off as two parts in her own article than a listbio. Der yck C. 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still misunderstand notability vs. article content: WP:NNC. EEng (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Charles Matthews and User:Keilana for their expertise on overseas Chinese and women's biographies. Der yck C. 09:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Tumbr page (even for The Vancouver Sun) is going to be a reliable source but you should probably refer to the article instead which is actually the same (Canada.com is taking its story from the Sun) so it's actually a single source. Nevertheless, the sources doesn't really provide any new information about her other than the same basic details. Perhaps this should be made into a redirect and a small biography at List of Canadian supercentenarians but we still have the issue of whether her claim should be included in the tables there (I don't see why not). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because she's not verified. It's unscientific to put an unverified SC in with verified ones. There's a reason she wasn't there. And in the case of 115+ claimants, under no circumstances should you put them in with verified ones. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 158.222.69.9 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent sources with further content. Plenty of human interest, nothing here encyclopedic that I can see. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rock solid coverage before death and in obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the NOPAGE and PERMASTUB arguments? EEng (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just add more info from the biographies and obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the point isn't to add any jumble of facts to just swell the article; can you suggest what might be added that our readers would want to know? EEng (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rather clear and undeniable claim of notability, backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources that provide the significant coverage needed about the subject to provide an appropriately substantial article. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline with coverage in The Province, CBC.ca, 加拿大家园, and The Vancouver Sun. Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)'s arguments against WP:NOPAGE are convincing. I strongly agree with his eloquent comment that:
In a sense, all biographies are "pedestrian life details". It is the extent of biographical coverage in reliable sources, not some arbitrary criterion for "importance", that determines notability.
Cunard (talk) 08:24, 29 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 wp:IAR procedural close as too similar and merged/linked from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emília Araújo. No action taken, the other discussion will decide. (If anyone disagrees just revert this, I do not oppose) Nabla (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Araújo[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 as needed for s WP:BLP. Double with Emília Araújo The Banner talk 08:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Only reference is a pageant blog of questionable reliability. Independent searches for sources got nothing reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article was copy/pasted to Emília Araújo (í, not i - which is the correct spelling of the Portuguese name). There is another AfD thiscussion for that one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emília Araújo. To keep discussion in one place I suggest to speedy procedural close and merge (if such a thing exists). That is, we close this one, link the other one to here, and if it gets to a delete conclusion we delete both, if it is a keep, we merge them. If no one objects in the next few hours I'll do it myself - Nabla (talk) 18:59, 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. Sandstein 12:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the Threat[edit]

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

Non-notable song, doesn't pass WP:NSONGS. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this could safely have been dealt with by Proposed deletion. No indication at all that an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 16:05, 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. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest artists of all-time[edit]

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

From new page patrol. Seems to be too vague a title as there are painters, performance artists etc Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:LSC. I don't there is any way to create objective selection criteria here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague, listcruft, and POV fork. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too vaguely defined as things stand _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I entirely agree. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a huge mess. This isn't a list of artists in general, but rather just in music, and not of "all-time", but of one specific period (as explicitly noted in the Rolling Stone list - "the most influential artists of the rock & roll era" - and the Billboard date restrictions). Otherwise Frank Sinatra and lots of others would be kicking some ass. It also has somewhat conflicting and/or vague criteria ("most successfull, best-selling & best") (sic); there's already List of best-selling music artists for the second. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons others have already given above. Markpackuk (talk) 12:53, 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. joe decker ^talk 06:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Jurynec[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might also want to check Tyler Willis (ice hockey) as well since he is only linked to that page. Yosemiter (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that his career has not included notable enough experience for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom pointed out, doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November Theatre[edit]

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

The article is created and authored by the person who runs it (see de prod note) and contains no external sources. Does it pass the threshold GNG? Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A hard term to search for but it does have its own entry in the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article definitely needs sourcing improvement, but the source that Shawn listed above confirms and bolsters notability — the world English premiere of The Black Rider, one of the single most notable contemporary operas of the past two decades, certainly counts for something. And for the record, a WP:COI is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete an article if proper referencing (such as an entry in the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia) does exist to clean it up with. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep November Theatre clearly meets WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE search quickly reveals this. I remind the nominator that AFD is not cleanup. Mkdw ^talk 19:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Shawn said it was not easy to search, but based on his findings I am happy to WITHDRAW Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Encyclopedia shows up as the fourth result for me. Perhaps it's biased since I used Google.ca. Nonetheless, thank you for your reconsideration. Mkdw ^talk 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe Shawn just forgot to constrain the search with an extra "Edmonton" and/or "Vancouver" — while admittedly the phrase is generic enough that it doesn't Google very well on its own (there appear, for example, to be at least a couple of other theatres in the world with the exact same name, and it'll also run up against usages like "Our November theatre calendar..."), it does Google much more easily with the extra geographical location terms. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 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 merge to Iraq Veterans Against the War. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Clousing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd nomination. 1st AfD closed as no consensus. A case of AWOL without particular importance or significance. The article has not been improved since and still lacks the kind of sources that assert notability. Fails BLP and WP:MILNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge key points to Iraq Veterans Against the War and redirect. Subject seems to have received more than a few passing mentions in a range of seemingly reliable sources so *may* be a valid search term; however, I don't think he meets WP:SIGCOV as we couldn't write a detailed biography about him. As such he probably doesn't meet WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per Anotherclown. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 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. Euryalus (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Edward[edit]

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

We discovered in RfD where Lord Ed and Lord Eddie are being discussed that this is the only disambig page in existence for Lord Name which suggests strongly we don't need this Neelix creation. There are already Lord and Edward pages. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to redirect to Edward Lord, as a reversed order name, such as is found in registries, where surnames appear first -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At EN:WP we don't do Eastern name order. It would in any case have to be Lord, Edward. Russian WP does it that way, e.g ru:Путин, Владимир Владимирович (Vladimir Putin). Hungarian WP does, but that's the usual form for Hungarian names. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the Edward Lords, Edward Clemens Lord was a missionary to China, where it is normal to have surnames first and given names last. So we can also just target Edward Clemens Lord; though many registers do not use a comma, and some instead just UPPERCASE the surname without a comma to separate it from the given name, so it does appear without commas. (like in a phone book) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete - What's the deletion rationale other than WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? If there are multiple people known commonly as just "Lord Edward", this seems a sensible dab. Definitely disagree with the above re: name reversals, though, except in non-standard cases (this does not look to be one of those cases). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can you show anyone is known as Lord Edward? Because if you just type Lord Edward into Wikipedia's search box or Google you are given a list of choices. This DAB page actually makes it harder to find what you want because you get it instead of choosing from the search results. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hmm. In my head I was hearing "Lord Edward" as a common way to talk about a lord along the lines of other "[title] + [given name]" combinations like King George and Maester Aemon. Upon further investigation I'm finding that it, in fact, does not look terribly common to do so, making this seem more non-standard than I previously thought. Switched to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same at first, but Queen Elizabeth II does not really have a last name or location, while a Lord is better identified as Lord Location or Lord Family Name then by Lord Given Name.Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think how they are identified depends on what kind of lord they are. See Lord#Modern_usage. Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this page is worse than useless - it lists 5 Lord Edwards; there are 9 who turn up in the drop-down search box if you type "Lord Edward", and a {{look from}} search on "Lord Edward" finds [Special:PrefixIndex/Lord_Edward this lot], which includes quite a few redirects to people whose article title is not "Lord...". Not a useful dab page; I'm not sure that it woud be a useful redirect to "Edward Lord" as we don't routinely provide redirects from every "surname forename" pair and it would stop readers from getting to the search box. PamD 20:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we don't have redirects at Lord George, Lord John, Lord Cyril, though we have articles or dab pages at George Lord, John Lord, and Cyril Lord ("This is luxury you can afford..." for UK TV watchers of a certain age!") (Or was in on Radio Luxemburg?). PamD 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telly. here. (Must get this book, the first two volumes are very good. Maybe my Christmas prezzie. Although it seems to have a typo "jungle" right there... perhaps I wait for 2nd edition.) Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect - the Lord Edward is a pub ([9]) which is supposedly the oldest seafood restaurant in Dublin, which may make it notable for an article. Without regard to that, every entry on this page fails WP:NAMELIST, there are no people known in full as "Lord Edward" nor do there appear to be any geopolitical areas known as Edward which are ruled by a lord, and per SimonTrew we don't do reversed name order unless it would be a plausible search, and this one isn't. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless per above (and maybe per WP:REDLINK per Ivanvector.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Travagli[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 on the grounds that he is signed to a fully-pro-league club. This does not confer notability since he has yet to make his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I deprodded this in error since an earlier version of the article claimed that he had played 25 games in a fully professional league.Since this claim was not correct and is no longer in the article, and there are no other claims of notability I agree the subject fails GNG. Meters (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article's statement "Travagli has yet to make his debut for the Strikers" seems key here. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pinging @I am pajamas: for input, since he originally tagged article for deletion under CSD A7. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am new to this whole thing, I defer to literally anyone else on this. I am just learning how Wikipedia works! I am pajamas (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, but might pass it soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a WP:FPL nor in senior international football, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. Has not garnered significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:11, 19 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. Michig (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of dance companies in Canada[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the yellowpages. The only sentence in the article correctly notes "There are many dance companies in Canada" and most are not worth an article.

Note the template at the bottom which has all red links for List of dance companies in North America. It looks like it goes away automatically if we delete this List of article. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, non-notable dance companies don't have to be included. Siuenti (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge That template at the bottom is the problem, I agree, not this Neelix-created list, which is a non-indiscriminate list of what should be notable Canadian dance companies. As for the argument "most are not worth an article" all but two have articles. On the other hand, we do have List of dance companies which is sortable by country, which has many of the companies listed there too. Most of them I think. I'd have no objection if someone wanted to merge this list into that. I'm going to try removing that template at the bottom, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this list is (or as Shawn says, "should be") of dance companies notable in a Canadian context. It can thus contain provincial companies which do not qualify for inclusion in List of Dance Companies. There will be some overlap with that list of course but as coverage of dance in Canada improves this list can grow with more, distinct, entries. --Mirokado (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT is not about removing lists of notable people, companies, or topics. This list clearly meets WP:LISTCOMPANY and our notability guidelines as it's not an indiscriminate list. Mkdw ^talk 17:44, 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 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Clarke[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, this, this and this and this simply hasn't changed much since starting in June 2007 with also no immediate signs of it happening. Pinging taggers The-Pope, CutOffTies and Royalbroil. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just have to modify search parameters, was able to find coverage at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 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 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double Take (group)[edit]

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

Clearly I am undecided if this and/or the so-called pop duo is really this notable as their notability only lasted less than a week despite being trivially mentioned in a number of news outlets just as Day Above Ground (AfD) did in 2013, unlike the same longer term web-viral impact that Rebecca Black or Alison Gold enjoyed, so therefore WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E applies also since then the pair appeared to have given up on their career as I guess this article assumed WP:RISING and WP:CRYSTAL. Donnie Park (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was easily able to find additional secondary source coverage with the following search parameters:

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

Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So has Day Above Ground, except because they are less offensive and being young fenales, they are not as forgotten as easily. The same point that I've made above, most of these sources are just in that period of one week in April 2012 and the media have ignored them ever since, therefore a WP:BLP1E case. Donnie Park (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 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) 09:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Dion 2016 French Album[edit]

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

A clear case of WP:HAMMER. Album name and track listing still unknown Gbawden (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS. This album already has all the coverage it presently needs at Celine Dion: a single sentence. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as I actually accepted this thinking it looked acceptable but considering there's simply not much, there's not much for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love Celine, but this is definitely WP:HAMMER with poor "she maybe could be probably in the studio and some paparazzi took a picture of her with some record guy" gossip sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft, currently fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 09:43, 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. Michig (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Thammaiah[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The given references are all by Santosh Thammaiah, not about him. Huon (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --Sreejith K (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another completely unacceptable and non-notable biography. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article whose only substantial reference is a one-line mention in an article. Multiple searches are turning nothing better to indicate that the subject meets the biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Mohamed[edit]

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

Another run-of-the-mill commercial photographer, I can't see how he is notable plus none of it in this article is sourced, therefore this won't help with notability. Donnie Park (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 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 Cybatar. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phiwa Nkambule[edit]

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

No indication of notability. All secondary sources are about Cybatar, the company this person founded, with very little about the person himself. Sources include a paragraph or two of interview quotes of him talking about the company, but little else.

When I cleaned this up in the hopes of saving it, I removing some sources that appeared unreliable; mostly user profiles or self-published content. Those sources can be seen in this version. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to company or simply delete as either are acceptable by me although deleting may be best for the article's future as I'm simply not seeing much better here. Pinging past users Ninney and Derek R Bullamore. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In as much as you find it not notable that article is very notable. Whoswho.co.za which has been used in a number of articles was removed which is a bit harsh on this article. The article is noteworthy mainly because of the impact it had after FeesMustFall protests. Your country was not affected by them but South Africa was and poor students are being assisted by an initiative launched by the person the article is about.

Do not delete the article but help improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phwaice (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 November 2015‎

The about page of Who's Who SA says that profiles are open to all Southern African professionals 18 or over. The Badges and Status system used by the site clearly indicates that it is based on users' activity on the site, and does not appear to verify the underlying claims being made. It also appears to be a social networking site, which is not useful. User profiles are not WP:SECONDARY, and they are not very reliable. If that site has been used in other WP:BLPs, it should be removed. Just because other articles have problems doesn't mean this one's problems should be ignored.

The article about the company is the place to discuss the company's roll in FeesMustFall, if it can be supported by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minimal coverage from secondary sources. Claims of notability rest on press releases and social media sites. Blackguard 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The article is a snub and deserves an equal chance for the community to contribute to it. I didn't find social media sites on the reference list when I fixed one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.76.132.139 (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:43, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Tanasić[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as it seems she's best known through Zvezde Granda and the best I found was this which is hardly useful. Pinging taggers WereSpielChequers and Philafrenzy and familiar user Wikimandia who may be able to find Serbian sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for notability in 2010, I'm not familiar with the subject area, but looking at the history it might be worth consulting Phil Bridger re sources. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep, I guess. She has received some news coverage (in Serbian) since, mostly yellow/music press, that can be seen here (Naslovi.net are news aggregator, not all those articles are about her, but a couple is). In 2009, she participated in the (odious) reality show Farma (Serbia), and had a few public appearances here and there, like 2013 on a TV Pink show (no, I can't be arsed to expand the article). No such user (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and she still sings on TV, as in this New Year Eve's show at TV Grand [10], so I guess it's enough. No such user (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 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 19:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VenueGen[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found here, here and here is not convincingly enough to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe not convincing enough for the nominator but I find notability requirements are met by sources found in searches and referenced in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 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! 05:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carta (publisher)[edit]

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

Only reference to this publisher is a link to their own website. Does not appear to meet the requirements of any notability guideline. KDS4444^Talk 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps actually as unless some Israeli sources are found, I found no better links other than passing mentions. Notifying DGG who have some insight with this. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worldcat clearly shows hey are the largest firm (indeed, the only significant firm) publishing maps of Israel., as listed [11] or { See the left hand column, under author: the other names are government or quasi-government agencies, Even when it is expanded, [12]the other names are individual catogrhers, not publishers individual cartoghers, not publishers. Similar results searching for individual cities. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love you, DGG, and I know you have a long and sincere history of involvement with Wikipedia, though I must tell you I so hate the word "clearly" (mostly 'cuz it disses the work of editors who have has the nerve to nominate things for deletion, which is hard enough without being called "clearly" wrong, yes?). The WorldCat results show that the Geological Survey of Israel/ the Ministry of Tourism is/ are major publishers of maps of Israel, and are much better known as such. That Carta exists does not qualify it as notable, no? KDS4444^Talk 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what I said was that they were the largest firm, by which I meant, as I usually do, commercial firm. (I'm aware there's a UK usage otherwise, so I should not have omitted the adjective.) Nonetheless, in what I said, I did make the distinction, and clearly called them what they are: government or quasi-govenment agencies. Carta is based on the bibliographic record the only commercial map publisher in the country. I don't want to be loved, I want to be read carefully.

You may perhaps rather want to say that being the only commercial map publisher in Israel is not notability, which is a different argument. Here, it's a matter of judgment what standard to use, , and I cannot prove that mine is right, not yours. I consider notability as much as matter of common sense and the GNG in some fields, and publishing firms are among the organizations that cannot be properly judged by the GNG. It would be possible to find reviews of their publications, though not from resources easily available to me.

I therefore judge by what I do have, which i find unequivocal: it is a judgment I would be fully prepared to make on the evidence in a professional context if my reputation as a bibliographer depended on it, though in such a context I would probably add a few more words of context and limitation in the over-cautious way of academics. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per User:DGG. Comment: This is the publisher archaeologists, pastors, scholars, bird watchers, tour guides, hikers, naturalists and journalists depend on for maps that show everything from where Capernaum is (Luke 4:31-37) to exactly where the Green Line runs. Here is the blog of a non-notable pastor reviewing a Carta atlas: [13]. Here is the Biblical Archaeology Review reviewing 2 notable Carta atlasas: [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, also, click "what links here." It is very useful, when confronted with a reference on a page, to be able to click and discover whether it is to a reputable publisher, or not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced Carta to Publishers Weekly, proving once again that if a topic is notable, sources do exist. More articles available in a search on publishersweekly.com, and, undoubtedly, elsewhere. Carta is hard to find in a general search, because it is such a common word, but this sourcing should put to put any lingering doubts on User:Musa Raza's part. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putting aside the incredible bad form of nominating an article for deletion within hours of its creation and while the editor who created it has put a {{Under construction}} tag on it, this company is notable and easily satisfies GNG. It is the principal publisher of geographic info (maps, atlases, digital maps) in Israel. It is used by government offices and authorities dealing with cartographic info as their official publisher. All of this in now in the article , with references to reputable academic publishers. As E.M.Gregory notes, there are over 50 other wikipedia articles that link to this. On the sister project of Hebrew Wikipeda, it has a detailed article which is nearly 10 Kbytes long (that's larger than the English Wikipedia's articles on Bantam Books, Doubleday (publisher) or Penguin Group. That should give deletionists with a trigger happy finger some reason for pause. Bad Dryer (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. The AFD was slapped onto a brand new page despite the active under construction tag. User:KDS4444, you best move is to withdraw the AFD, apologize on Bad Dryer's talk page, then follow John 8:11.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep article under construction obviously Appable (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

Keep Publisher in herpetology. Mirror360 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Above user is a banned sockpuppet account, see investigation details. Appable (talk) 05:36, 19 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 - A7' Alexf^(talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachir Djamate[edit]

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

No claim of notability, and no real information. This is also a duplicate of information found in the article on the "Algerian War." // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 02:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, criteria G7, the article creator blanked the page. EricSerge (talk) 22:05, 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 Speedy keep, nominator withdrew their nomination and only delete vote was withdrawn -- GB fan 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Pereira[edit]

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

WP:NOPAGE concerns really. I'm not sure that someone who was allegedly 160 years old should have a separate page. Neither of the sources here qualify as reliable sources to me and while an obituary would more likely be considered WP:ROUTINE, it was in Time I guess. The talk page states that he was reported in the newspapers in the past so he may pass WP:GNG through that. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a stamp in his honor [15] so fraud or not, there's almost certainly SIGCOV of him somewhere, if only in Spanish. EEng (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can live with that I guess. I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the fanboys say we don't have open minds! EEng (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is trolling. No sources provided, unless the rumoured sources in Spanish are provided there is no reason to keep this article. 930310 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One of the reasons that participation by SPAs, such as yourself, in the deletion process is problematic is their unfamiliarity with applicable policy and guidelines, combined with the fact that such familiarity doesn't seem to improve very much with time, because of a typical SPA's ongoing lack of experience outside of their restricted topic area. In the present case, a consensus of Keep doesn't require that appropriate sources be actually produced (though in practice this is usually what happens), but merely that the consensus of editors be that they believe, in good faith, that such sources exist. Because of the language barrier, and the commonness of the subject's name, it may be difficult to locate such sources without specialized expertise, and yet it's reasonable to believe that the subject of a government-issued stamp would be the subject of, at the very least, some official government announcement and likely consequent coverage in the press. And that's enough. EEng (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, if you can't prove that he escaped local coverage by citing reliable sources (which you don't) then there are no valid grounds for keeping articles such as this one. 930310 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How am I trolling? Why are you voting delete on this article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon, Ricky, why do you engage nonsense posts? No one thinks you're trolling. EEng (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(A) I still assume good faith no matter what; (B) for whatever reason, no matter how bizarre the argument, discussions have been closed on that basis and (C) either 930310 is serious here in these discussions or this kind of name-calling is evidence that a topic ban is necessary. So I'm still waiting on a response on how it's trolling and why in all these discussions is this one that should be deleted? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. So what about it, 930310, what's your evidence that Ricky is, as you say, trolling? EEng (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Ricky is voting for the deletion of well sourced articles about people with validated ages (meaning they have reliable age claims) and is voting for keeping articles that have no sources whatsoever and that are about ridiculous age claims that are not possible to attain as of now. And regarding a topic ban, I think you are much more suited for that EEng since you insult the people that the articles are about by statements such as "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal", which you said here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcella_Humphrey. 930310 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now at least six reliable sources in this version. You do understand that the GRG isn't the only reliable source in the world, correct? You do understand that this is an encyclopedia about more than just "people the GRG considers the world's oldest people" or "people that 930310 considers the world's oldest people", correct? In this case, the article indicates his notability based on numerous sources when he was found, including a number of newspapers, and the fact that there was a national stamp with him. Given the independent WP:GNG notability shown, the nomination was flawed on my part. The question still stands, why do you think this should be deleted? It sounds like you are voting delete solely on the basis that you consider the claim ridiculous, is that true? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are now several sources proving that he was well-featured in the media I will withdraw my vote. 930310 (talk) 12:19, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Reason: Snowball clause, merge is more appropriate. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 03:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChampionsGate[edit]

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

Notability is questionable. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 02:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because people live there. All towns people live in should be listed on site. Hundreds of people live there. It's not just a golf course,it's a community people LIVE IN like Reunion and Celebration Florida. I've seen towns with 50 people have articles. Why don't yall try to make the article better — Preceding unsigned comment added by RjTa0m3Yu10D (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://content.usatoday.com/community/tags/topic.aspx?req=tag&tag=ChampionsGate Proof it's very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RjTa0m3Yu10D (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I beg to differ. It is not a city, but a hotel. If there was a Wikipedia page for EVERY hotel, Wikipedia would become a travel agency, not a encyclopedia. As it is, there is no major press coverage or any warrant for there to be any notability. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) P.S.... THose news articles you provided are from 2003/2004 and make no specific refrence to "ChampionsGate." // Posted by larsona (Talk) // [reply]

Its not a hotel,its a place people live (few hundred) .There are articles on this site for many communities (even sections of towns). Orlando Sentinel is a notable paper. Do you think that Ernston New Jersey is notable too?? It's staying — Preceding unsigned comment added by RjTa0m3Yu10D (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find solid evidence to prove your claims (a census report, a news report, etc.), then you would prove your claim valid and the article would no longer be considered for deletion. However, as of now you have failed to provide solid evidence as to the notability of this 'community.' // Posted by larsona (Talk) // —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the population is about 100 according to this http://www.realtor.com/local/Championsgate-Village_Four-Corners_FL/lifestyle there is also this http://roadsidethoughts.com/fl/championsgate-xx-osceola-census.htm, Wikipedia has articles for nearly everywhere people live in the US (even Ernston New Jersey, Brownville New Jersey) why the double standard.

The GNIS Codes ...

The current system of identification is called the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). The following GNIS codes relate to ChampionsGate:

GNIS ID for ChampionsGate: 2013663

GNIS ID for Osceola County: 295748

GNIS ID for Florida: 294478

Misc. Census Codes ...

ChampionsGate is located in Census Region #3 (the South Region) and Division #5 (the South Atlantic Division).

For more information about the various Federal identification codes, please visit our Misc Page for ChampionsGate.

from the 2015 census of ChampionsGate : http://www.realtor.com/local/Championsgate-Village_Four-Corners_FL/lifestyle RjTa0m3Yu10D (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information in your first link says that there is no census information available, and the information from 'realtor.com' is just an estimate. 114 people is out of the 26, 116 people in the Four Corners area; there is already a Wikipedia article on the apparently unincorporated area. There is no way that every community of 114 people has to have a Wikipedia article, and I still think you have failed to show the significance. Perhaps the best we can do is merge it into the article on Four Corners, but at that point someone has to add at least 50 more sections, and I don't think that would be you. Not every golf course deserves an encyclopedia page. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The census is done every 10 years starting in 1970. Unless there's something I don't know about, there is no such thing as the 2015 U.S. Census // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this article is staying. Brownville (a section in Old Bridge), Sayrewood South (a section in Old Bridge have articles and they have no census for them either. I am sick of you people deleting everyone's articles. Championsgate has people living there. There was a 2015 census there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RjTa0m3Yu10D (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: The following contains opinion: The creator's rationalle for keeping the page is almost the same as saying "over 100 people visit my local Walmart everyday... there has to be an article for that!" This is flawed logic. There are over 34k golf courses in the world, 45% of them are in the United States. Has Tiger Woods played there? How about Arnold Palmer? This would be an entirely different discussion if they have, but it would also be an entirely different article. The article itself fails to mention why it's notable, and the article creator can't produce any other reason than "people live there." Delete is my vote. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 03:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernston,_New_Jersey One last try, Ernston New Jersey is a NEIGHBORHOOD and it has an article, it past many smell tests to get where it is ,what makes Ernston more notable than Championsgate. Maybe consider merging Championsgate into Four Corners article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RjTa0m3Yu10D (talk • contribs) 03:27, 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) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Mack[edit]

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

I'm struggling to see how this actor/singer meets WP:GNG criteria. None of the film roles are major, while her band self-released an album which does not seem to have achieved any success. None of the biographical information is sourced (the info about the band is cited to a press release). A very large chunk was added by a PR company. Time to decide whether this one stays or goes... Sionk (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I don't think she passes WP:GNG and no reliable sources available either. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable for sure and with no better signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those 2 sources for whole biography article are not trustful for me and actress is not known among public. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 14:21, 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 Belton School District. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeokum Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. Fails WP:ORG. clpo13_(talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we do not normally keep articles about run-of-the-mill middle schools. The article is unreferenced and states that the school is closed. Although I would not object to a redirect, I see no obvious target. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belton School District, was part of when open. Notifying Cullen328 in case he wants to update his comment. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect to to Belton School District is fine with me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting schools that aren't independently notable to the school district article seems like a pretty standard outcome here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 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 redirect to Belton School District. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) ansh 666 12:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belton Middle School/Freshman Center[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. Fails WP:ORG. clpo13_(talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Belton School District - standard practice Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:08, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Franceska Jaimes[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. Negligible biographical content. Only independent reliable sourcing relates to her marriage to her notable husband, falling afould of WP:NOTINHERITED. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - Without having done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, it seems like a redirect would be the best course of action at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete fails the notability guidelines for pornographic actirs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Comes up short on GNG with most RS coverage primarily being about Nacho Vidal. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 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. joe decker ^talk 06:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Donovan[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player per WP:NBASE. He was drafted into the MLB but never played a game. clpo13_(talk) 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASEBALL/N: He just graduated from high school, never actually played college or professional baseball, and does not have substantial coverage from multiple independent sources. The only remotely substantial article is the USA Today website one, because he was "Gatorade State Baseball Player of the Year" for Illinois, whatever that is. The other sources are mass-generated statistics pages or his family's own output. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. (Also, per WP:BDP, I'm removing the Death section, which consists only of a claim with a dead reference and an unsourced claim.) --Closeapple (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comes no where near passing notability requirements for baseball.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable baseball player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:00, 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. Michig (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't see the person's notability per WP:BIO. Authoring a few little-known books? Having translated Quran? Having students who published books? kashmiri ^TALK 21:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person doesn't appear to be notable as a figure with a legacy in South Asian religious studies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 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 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Googled for "abdul qadeer siddiqui" -wikipedia; 0 news hits and found only 1 short mention in a book (... Abdul Qadeer Siddiqui, the head of the Islamic Studies Department at the Osmania University, ...) Trying "abdul qadir siddiqui" got me more hits, including more junk hits but also this this (Maulana Abdul Qadir Siddiqui, formerly Professor of Theology in the Osmania University, is not only a practical Sufi, but also a noted thinker. Meyar-al-Kalam (The Standard of Kalam) and the Hikamte-a-Islamia (The Philosophy of Islam) are his original contributions to Islamic thought (...?)) and this snippet view (... Moulvi Abdul Qadir Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic Theology and Religion in the Osmania University, ...). Really pushing the "significant coverage" criterium here, but who knows what that second source has to tell beyond the snippet view. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the second source found by HaperGaruda. That alone does not establish notability, but calling him a "noted thinker" in an English-language publication suggests to me that there are probably other (undigitized, Urdu-language) sources covering him. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe two cursory mentions in two 1940s books, with no single mention afterwards, are rather a strong indication of lack of notability. If that person was indeed a notable scholar, he would have been the subject of many publications, in India and abroad, in the half a century passed since his death. Note that WP:NPERSON explicitely requires significant coverage. kashmiri ^TALK 21:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Source ^[1]

^ Columba Sara Evelyn (22 July 2011). Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri. Fec Publishing. ISBN 978-613-5-71490-6.

Comment: You might like to know that that source specifically states "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online" - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as I would've also said reluctant keep at this time but there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement which the article seriously needs. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dues to lack of coverage in reliable sources. The article links to a few websites, but the ones that aren't dead links are not reliable sources. The only GBooks hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show notability. For someone who other sources quote as being a "noted thinker" - a few hits on Scholar (if it is the same person), with Zero citations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Capital[edit]

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

Not notable. The refs look impressive, but most of them really stretching it. Some are merely notices of funding. Some are press releases; some are self-serving interviews with the ceo. And some are so trivial as the ceo having been given an award as "Entrepreneur of the Year in Financial Services for Orange County. " DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the Orange County award is due to it being based in Newport Beach. It looks like the award is actually a regional award from Ernst & Young [16]. However, that's still not good enough to establish notability. I did find several references outside of what was in the article. There are some about acquisitions and some about funding, but there are also many that talk indepth about the company [17], [18], paragraph in WSJ. Here is the news section on the company website which should help keeping it straight from other "United Capital" companies out there [19]. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On a side note, the tone of the article pretty much falls in the promotional category so I would suggest a gutting or rewording of most of the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Too many passing mentions and routine listings. I have also nominated Financial life management for deletion (here), because the phrase appears to be used exclusively as branding by the company. There might be a connection. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but restart later if needed as I haven't looked closely but I'm not seeing anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 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 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Albeit weak, a couple of sources used are iffy and it's littered with puffery. Satisfies WP:GNG imo though but not written well at all currently. Suggest cutting all the over-substantiation. Jppcap (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asheesh Sethi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as I am unable to find any substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.isfutile:P (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs local research, possibly in Hindi papers. There is certainly coverage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable at this time with no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor businessman with nothing making him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 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. Whereas the church is most likely notable, given that the article is almost empty and had copyvio from the first version (which needed to be revdeleted), it is safer to delete it. Everybody is welcome to start the article all over again.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Philip's Anglican Church[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising, likely copyvio. No claim of notability Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete Exactly why I PROD it, but you removed the PROD to nominate for discussion. Anyway I still think Delete. Creator seems to be related to the church too. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails GNG and SIGCOV. Obviously copied from a "History of..." or similar. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyvio from http://stphilips.org.nz/stphilips/about/historygadfium 05:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have deleted the copyvio text, it's so blatant that it can't stay there. That does not of itself mean that the church is not notable or could not have a decently-cited article, just that this bit of copying is not it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- all we have now is a list of clergy, none of whom have articles: clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article as created was indeed a copy-and-paste from curch's website, probably by a well-intentioned parishoner. However, the church's 1902 building is old, by Aotearoa standards. It was given to a daughter parish, moved to a nearby town, then, when that parish merged back into St. Philip's, the 1902 building was given to a Maori congregation which, form what I can tell , still uses it. In other words, From all I can see, the original St. Philip's building is notable. With all the changes of name (of both parishes and towns that morphed into suburbs, and municipal boundaries) plus the fact that the building is called by all names of parishes, locations, and whatnot in sundry sources, I don't have time to deal with it. Hope someone in Auckland will. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 18:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carla van Raay[edit]

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). No notability is asserted as far as I can see. Three sources, two of which are primary. The only non-primary source is a review from someone who doesn't appear to be notable. -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources don't demonstrate sufficient notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see no obvious better improvement. Pinging past users Wilhelmina Will and Robofish. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources I found about her and her books are:

Dempsey, Dianne (12 April 2008), "Desire", The Age

Carton, Donna (6 August 2006), "I was a NUN for 12 years... but left the convent to become a PROSTITUTE", The Sunday Mirror

Beament, Emily (29 July 2006), "Warts and all true story", Birmingham Post

"Books: AUTOBIOGRAPHY", Coventry Evening Telegraph, 22 July 2006

"Frank tale from nun and prostitute", Leicester Mercury, 19 July 2006

Millington, Ruby (7 July 2006), "Memoirs of a madam and a sex-worker nun", The Daily Express

Dempsey, Dianne (3 April 2004), "MEMOIR", The Age

Gill, Harbant (27 March 2004), "Beyond belief", Herald-Sun

Miraudo, Nadia (7 March 2004), "Spiritual journey from nun to callgirl", Sunday Times (Perth)

Clark, Lucy (27 March 2004), "Troubled path of a confused soul", Sunday Telegraph

Laurie, Victoria (21 February 2004), "Sister Double Act", The Australian Magazine

Simpson, Gavin (2 August 2003), "God's call girl.", The West Australian

Those with access can get more from AustLit eg. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:21, 3 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) 05:18, 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 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete would WP:BLP1E apply here. She is only known for one thing. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't apply. A book is not an event. Coverage around that first book was maintained over an extended period, from over six months before it's release to years afterwards. She has coverage for more than one book. She maintained a profile to help publicise her books and for her work as a "counsellor, speaker and workshop leader" ("Carla shares lifes lessons", Comment News, 13 May 2008). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another review of her second book -- Elder, Bruce (13 May 2008), "In short Nonfiction", The Sydney Morning Herald

Some online coverage BBC, Trouw

Dutch review of first book -- van de Ven, Door Jace (19 February 2005), "De lange weg terug van Carla van Raay", Brabants Dagblad

Coverage of a public lecture in the Netherlands -- van de Ven, Door Jace (12 March 2005), "'Ik heb nog bij jou in de klas gezeten'", Brabants Dagblad

Also reviewed in Issue Details: no. 263 August 2004 of Australian Book Review [20].

Multiple translations exist. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Her first book has clearly "won significant critical attention" WP:AUTHOR and has sold over 300,000 copies. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as an author. I don't generally support using the GNG when it yields a result opposed to common sense, but it certainly does have a major role, as it does here, where it supports a common-sense decision in contrast to various quibbles,such as an attempt to extend BLP1E way beyond its intended meaning. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per DGG. Eden's Apple (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally our AUTHOR and similar guidelines are constructed to more or less consider coverage of works of a writer/artist as coverage of the artist, the topics tend to be pretty intermingled. (One can see AUTHOR as a reframing of GNG rather than an exception to it. In any case, that's been our usual practice.) DGG's comments on BLP1E are also on-point. Sources provided by Duffbearforme appear sufficient. --joe decker ^talk 06:51, 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. The sources have been debunked and that hasnt been challenged. The keep arguments amount to assertion and there is a refusal to bring specific sources forward for examination. On that basis the delete argument is stronger but im willing to userfy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complykaro[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian compliance service provider, SPA-article. Sources are press releases, promotional marketing articles, and a few passing mentions as event organisators and interviewees. Article contains a lot of puffery and self-serving "we explain our vision" quotes (which could be fixed of course, if it was the only issue). Google search shows no other suitable sources for independent in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing a good deal of secondary source coverage amongst multiple references. Article itself may require cleanup and NPOV fixes, but topic itself is notable. — Cirt (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cirt: Could you provide some examples of independent in-depth coverage about the organization please? I checked the current sources:

ref #1 appears to be self-written by the company founder (EP usually attributes own articles, this one starts with "Vishal Kedia ... informs that ...")

ref #2 is not accessible, but looks like an interview (which may contain additional independent coverage or not, impossible to tell)

ref #3 is a passing mention (interview quote)

ref #4 is a larger copy of ref #3, with 1 more interview sentence from the founder

ref #5 is not about the company, the organization is only mentioned in passing (and INVC accepts reader-contributed articles)

ref #6 is a self-written PR article (see the last 2 paragraphs)

ref #7 is a probably self-written summary for one of their own events (non-neutral language, site publishes reader-submitted articles, no author).

There is really not much independent coverage here, but maybe I am overlooking some other sources. GermanJoe (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant including searches at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and elsewhere, not necessarily in the article itself at present. — Cirt (talk) 22:35, 2 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 17:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cirt, references don't have to be in the article (though it's helpful) to show that there's GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nom) - I have now researched possible new sources for the third time with no success, and looked closely into several of the offered Google news results and other possible references. I did a lengthy WP:BEFORE check and a complete source check. Cirt, Megalibrarygirl, could you please provide 2 or 3 specific examples for this alleged independent in-depth coverage, with more than just passing mentions or self-written statements from the founder? Based on the currently available sources, both in the article and online, this promotional article (written by a company employee by the way) fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. GermanJoe (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cirt. Needs a rewrite but the writers on Wikipedia are stretched thin! (I'll do it, but only if there's a guarantee it won't be deleted!) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to MurderByDeadcopy - for his generous offer to bring this article up to snuff. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Onel5969's suggestion. If other sources really exist - although none of the contributors here have provided any specific examples after several requests -, working on the article in draft or userspace may be a reasonable outcome (see also the current WP:VPP discussion about "AfD culture", which might be relevant here). GermanJoe (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 29 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine de La Fosse[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Searching "Antoine de La Fosse" on Google Books appeared to largely come up with editions of his works; on News, Scholar, and Web Search, nothing useful that I could see. I also couldn't see anything searching "Antoine de La Fosse" on jstor. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: While one would scarcely guess from the sub-stub article (unless one takes the hint to look at the French Wikipedia article), the subject does seem to be just about notable as a playwright and poet - even if his reputation seems to rest mostly on just one play and one or two translations. But the play seems to have been popular for a century or so, the subject still gets entries in specialist but selective reference works (this and this, for instance), and this monograph focusses on the play at some length. PWilkinson (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable. I have fleshed out the article and added ~20 sources. @Caeciliusinhorto and PWilkinson: have another look. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor:: excellent work. The sources you found seem to conclusively demonstrate that my inability to find useful sources was user error, not lack of notability. There's also much more to work with for future editors, which is an excellent outcome all around. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:24, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Ellis, Jr.[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR, as they have played only minor roles so far. WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Subject maybe mentioned in the personal life section of his father's article: Lester Ellis Jim Carter 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. Pinging past users TheRedPenofDoom and GiantSnowman. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Giant Snowman 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an improvable stub on a person who meets WP:GNG and whose easily sourcable career meets WP:ENT: Major character Mitchell in all six episodes of Ja'mie: Private School Girl, major character Johnny Tedesco in Fat Tony & Co., as Bryce Ridley in Wentworth Prison, major character Pete in all episodes of Nowhere Boys, and most recently as Joe in Downriver. Had his work been minor character roles such as "third man" or "student" or "man with newspaper", I might agree that WP:ENT was not met, but that is not the case. The inexperienced contributor Alicialivia could be encouraged to add the available sources to avoid scrutiny in the future... as sourcable notability is assured. This stub needs attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOW - 6 WHOLE EPISODES!!!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(READ IT) WP:ENT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THERE MUST BE 200 EPISODES (OR ANY NUMBER OF THEM) IN ORDER FOR A NOTABLE SERIES TO BE DETERMINABLE AS NOTABLE OR THAT THERE MUST BE SOME MINIMUM NUMBER OF EPISODES BEFORE A MAJOR ROLE CAN BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT. WOW INDEED.!!!! Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt While the burden was not mine but I felt the need to fix the article, I did what I could, maybe a bit hasty, a copyedit might require. I'm still worried that the subject may fail WP:ENT, the roles are pretty minor except "Ja'mie: Private School Girl", which may or may not be enough to make the article pass WP:ENT. However, this article may pass our general notability threshold. Pinging GiantSnowman and SwisterTwister to get more opinions. On a different note, Michael, your comment really looks exaggerated, please avoid capitalizing every word, it doesn't looks good. :) Jim Carter 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carter It was capitalized only in response to someone doing it to me right above it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:22, 1 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 18:11, 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 00:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of in-depth roles to meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had a major role in one series,has potential46.208.73.116 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even with the current improvements, I'm simply still not seeing enough convincing and IMDb especially summarizes his career well; not yet notable but feel welcome to restart the article when better solid. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 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. Michig (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saumya Tandon[edit]

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

The article does not establish Tandon is notable. There is no significant coverage of Tandon in reliable sources; conversely, the article's content largely is not based on the provided sources. A Google News search found some celebrity gossip in the Times of India, but nothing significant enough to base an article on. Huon (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This nomination is a textbook case of WP:GEOBIAS. This would be equivalent to nominating Jill Wagner or Samantha Harris or Bruce Forsyth for deletion. Tandon is clearly a notable television personality in India. AusLondonder (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to provide the references that discuss her in some detail. I tried to find some and failed. You're welcome to prove me wrong. Huon (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless this can actually be improved as I'm simply not seeing enough to convince me keeping (News and browser instantly found links but nothing convincing and IMDb was also not convincing). SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Saumya Tandon is a very very popular television personality in India. She is currently playing the leading role in a very popular television series Bhabhi Ji Ghar Par Hai! on a top Hindi language entertainment channel, &tv. If that is not notable, what is? I have no clue how this nomination came to pass. Crackjack (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be offered. I found a few articles in Times of India and Hindustan Times [26], [27], [28], but only the first one is substantial, and barely so. LaMona (talk) 19:52, 1 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 18:13, 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 00:17, 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 no consensus. The article needs some serious attention. There is certainly great room for improvements. If the issues remain and if the state of the article does not change, it can always be renominated. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brooks[edit]

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Search for Justin Brooks on HighBeam Search for Justin Brooks on JSTOR

Appears to be entirely self-promotional. Main contributor:

Jxc3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...appears to be a single-purpose account with a close connection to the subject.

SageGreenRider (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although this person seems to be doing interesting work, I don't think he passes wp:academics. No named chair, no awards that I can find, and his academic writings are cited a couple of dozen times only. LaMona (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject might be notable - his h-index, according to Google Scholar, is only about 7 but that actually seems to be quite high for law academics. But, while it might be very weakly suggestive of notability, what it mainly establishes is that citation rates are an ineffective way to prove notability for law academics. Again, the California Innocence Project, which he apparently founded and leads, seems to be genuinely notable. But while I am seeing the possibility of the subject's notability, it is disappointing to find that the article does absolutely nothing to help establish the subject's notability, while doing everything it can to promote him - references all seem to be either to the subject or to organisations closely connected with him (sometimes OK for verifiability, almost never directly for notability) and we are given external inline links to websites connected with the subject when Wikipedia articles could be linked to instead. The article would therefore require a thorough rewrite to establish notability - other people are welcome to try, but I can't be bothered. PWilkinson (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My grounds for deletion are not related to notability or lack thereof. I believe this is WP:SPAM which reads in part Articles considered advertisements include those that ... are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. I don't want to be WP:OUTING anyone but a quick Google search convinced me that the main contributor has a close personal connection to the subject. SageGreenRider (talk) 22:10, 1 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 18:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is clearly notable, not as an academic per se, but for his innocence project work and getting innocent people out of prison. Clearly meets GNG. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he founded the California Innocence Project. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable. I searched Google News and the Google Newspaper archive, adding "Innocence Project" to the search terms. There are dozens of articles describing his legal work. Of course, the article ought to have more independent sources and would benefit from work by uninvolved editors. Our guideline against spam is intended to eliminate "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." I do not see the article as purely a "public relations piece." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 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 00:12, 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. The article has been improved since nominated. If the issues that support deletion still remain, this can always be renominated. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Noonan (Chief Trade Adviser)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Does not meet WP:GNG. Does not have significant coverage across multiple WP:RS Zpeopleheart (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, not much information at all. Only one day old, but if editor is serious this should be done in draft space. LaMona (talk) 19:43, 1 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 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appear to meet notability criteria. I have updated the article - he is cited in NZ and Australian media, is well published, and holds a signficant academic position. The initial article did not do him credit NealeFamily (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way the article now stands, there's enough evidence for notability. Schwede 66 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:ATD editing to improve the page is preferable to deletion. The examples added in show that with editing the page can make the cut. Markpackuk (talk) 12:58, 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 g7, author requested deletion on article talk page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSP Music Group[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the artist refs are Wikipedia articles. Two other refs are own web-sites and another is a very local source to Cedar Falls. Nothing here anywhere close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Evidence of Notability - Request before article completion. Assistance from WP to properly cite and create reference. Citations updated. Edits to correct- still learning cite, systems and abbreviations. Notability is referenced and cited. Need wp assistance. Updated since find source request- added- updated third party sourced. Categorized — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristay2017 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This is my very first wikipedia article so I am learning as I post. I have taken my time, updating it daily as I do more research. New cites from third party sources added[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better third-party can actually be found as I found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability sourced- with reference, link, cites. - Requested before article completion. Assistance from WP to properly cite and create reference. Citations updated. Edits to correct- still learning cite, systems and abbreviations. Notability is referenced and cited. Need wp assistance. Updated since find source request- added- updated. Categorized. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristay2017 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 19 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.

[Evelyn2011-1] Columba Sara Evelyn (22 July 2011). Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri. Fec Publishing. ISBN 978-613-5-71490-6.

[1]