Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BorderConnect[edit]

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

A quick Google search returns no results that would brand this company as notable. rayukk | talk 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all my searches also found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with the nominator. Risker (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Admin Assessment of consensus is Delete Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) --rayukk | talk 23:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Fowler (architect)[edit]

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

I fail to see the relevance to an architect who was "probably responsible for the Alexandra Hotel, Knightsbridge. rayukk | talk 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator- A large amount of content has been added. --rayukk | talk 23:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator needs to become MUCH more familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policies before they start any more AfDs. In particular WP:BEFORE. I forgot to add an {{in use}} template, but even the most cursory of searches would have revealed that the subject was notable. Edwardx (talk) 23:41, 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 speedy delete. G11,advertising DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D&H Sécheron Electrodes Private Limited[edit]

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

Corporate spam without independent coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Beagel (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have been tempted to speedy this as purely promotional. No independent refs but masses of puffery. I am sure that this company could be notable but there is nothing to salvage here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:06, 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Universities Football Union[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how this is different to e.g. British Universities and Colleges Sport? Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 22:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well if anybody can find significant coverage I will change my !vote, even the External links don't cover what it is. JMHamo (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The Irish equivalent to British Universities and Colleges Sport is Colleges & Universities Sports Association of Ireland... JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs improving and expanding not deletion. JMHamo will you be nominating The Boat Race next. It is not relevant that there is no British equivalent article. University sport in Ireland is more notable then British equivalent. Djln Djln (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djln: Please don't make assumptions about me.. I am Irish. Please comment on the article in question and not me. The fact is there are no reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are Irish, how is that relevant ? You clearly know little or nothing about Irish sports thou. There are plenty of reliable sources on the net regarding this topic Djln Djln (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are? Then please add the ones about the Irish Universities Football Union and I will happily change my !vote. JMHamo (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on expanding/improving this article over the next few days Djln Djln (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood Cup[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, university team football is not notable~~ JMHamo (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR JMHamo (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you even bother to read article before, nominating for deletion. I doubt you could have judging by speed of the nomination. University football in England may not be notable but in Ireland university football and sport are notable. Several clubs/teams compete in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland football league systems. In addition they also compete in national cup competitions. UCD A.F.C. have also represented Ireland in European competition and won the FAI Cup. UCC A.F.C. have played in the 2015 League of Ireland Cup. The Collingwood Cup is one of the oldest soccer competitions in Ireland and is the oldest all Ireland soccer competition. The 2014 Collingwood Cup was broadcast live on Setanta Sport. The Collingwood Cup receives good coverage from Irish national press and media (see links to articles from and Irish Times/BBC. A Google search reveals 5,370 hits. Two similar articles Sigerson Cup and Fitzgibbon Cup also exist. Over twenty Wikipedia articles already mention the Collingwood Cup Djln Djln (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Djln, clearly meets GNG. Giant Snowman 22:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, making WP:NFOOTY and WP:FOOTYN irrelevant. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:19, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Winter (soldier)[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, the sources are primary records and genealogical sites. The editor who created the article has admitted that the assertion about "the only father and son to have been awarded the DCM" is unable to be reliably sourced. The editor in question has been asked if they are related to this subject and the other article's subject (ie COI) and have chosen not to respond. This looks like a classic case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the absence of WP:SIGCOV this fails WP:GNG per the nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anotherclown, while a DCM is a considerable achievement, the article's subject does not appear to be covered in significantly in multiple third party sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Main point of interest – only father and son to win DCM – is not cited. Hamish59 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Warrant officer with a single second-level decoration. Simply NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey Smith[edit]

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

Being a filthy rich member of the English peerage does not necessarily make a person notable; many such creatures understanably maintain a very low profile. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's not a member of the peerage! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no title, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of notability. Tiller54 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Retain. He's the owner of one of the country's largest independent breweries, large land and property-owner and is notorious in the Yorkshire media and beyond for his business practices. I will be adding further details to this entry in the coming days. Darkieboy236 (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : RETAIN. As well as the above by Darkieboy, Sam Smith's Brewery is a substantial employer throughout the UK. All new, and most of the existing bar staff, excluding managers, are on minimum wage and zero hours contracts. Indeed, must have been at the forefront of this zero hour movement. Such people should not be able to hide behind anonymity. You would not delete other people / companies guilty of such and other immoral practices. He is also of interest to many Sam Smith's customers / fans, he is also one of the country's wealthiest individuals and as such is the subject of interest to those who find Rich Lists etc. interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6 Cylinders And Overdrive (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the notoriety is real...ie can be properly referenced, fair enough. There's nowt about that in the article. Otherwise, just another fat cat... many of whom are unpleasant. Sort of comes with the territory.TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still Retain: Suggest a browse of The Sam Smith's Forum. And he's hardly a typical fat cat - he is often referred to as the opposite regarding his dress standards. He is the owner of many derelict properties which are eyesores in our communities. And despite providing a cheap pint for the working man, no longer supports local events or charities. I suggest you see one of latest posts in the forum where he has ordered the covering up of a mural supporting our troops - today is Remembrance Day. 6 Cylinders And Overdrive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6 Cylinders And Overdrive (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no better improvement and thus nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 14 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, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWSE[edit]

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

No sources, not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BROADCAST. Try Smile Radio 98.3 / 98.3 FM Bataan.--RioHondo (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Search results for 98.3 Bataan come out with links to their website. And since it's a primary source, it will not be used to test the subject's notability. 121.54.54.236 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that its been verified that the radio station exists, IMO you only need to demonstrate any of these 3 notability criteria per same guideline: large audience, long history or unique programming. This being one of the few FM stations in the entire province of Bataan with population close to 700,000 and with its own radio programs or shows (ergo not a relay station) as per website, the station is notable IMO.--RioHondo (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, WP:BROADCAST does not actually confer an exemption from having to reliably source the article's content. You're correct that any of the above would be sufficient notability for a keep if the article had actual sources in it, but a radio station can't just claim those things and still be kept if the article citess no sources — it's not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim, that passes BROADCAST. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a good number of provincial radio stations in the Philippines facing AfDs if strict application of in-depth coverage in reliable sources is followed, as there's not a lot of online sources in rural areas and provinces for the few media they have. For example, this radio station is like one of only 2 FM stations broadcasting from that province as per this government source. Another government source mentions a partnership between the radio station and a local government's information office. Apart from those, there's barely any RS that tackles the station in depth apart from the station's website. And this is just Bataan. There's 80 provinces more with their provincial media barely getting any coverage, eventhough they serve a large rural audience.--RioHondo (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, however, is that we have a major issue with hoax articles being created about Philippine radio stations that actually don't exist at all when somebody goes looking for them — while that occasionally happens in other countries too, in the Philippines specifically it crosses the line into an outright epidemic. And people have created fake webpages to support the "existence" of their fake radio stations, too, so the mere fact that a station has a webpage isn't enough evidence in and of itself if the article is sourced nowhere else besides that. I didn't say there has to be a ton of sourcing — even just one or two reliable sources are enough, as long as they properly support that the station actually exists — but if no reliable sourcing is present then we have no way of being able to determine whether a station exists in the real world or just inside somebody's own head. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat. It has been a long time since this kind of problem exists, not only here on English Wikipedia but also cross- and off-wiki. Not only fake stations but also fake channels and networks, TV and radio alike. Since there are no or not enough sources to support the subject, I have no choice but to have it deleted. I'm sorry. 121.54.54.236 (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply because these stations are usually kept and will also need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and anon. It's much better not to create such articles as the one discussed here especially if no reliable sources can be provided just like what Bearcat said. Sixth o f March 03:22, 18 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 19:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BROADCAST They are a licensed full power broadcast station in a major market with a 30 year history. I added two sources to the article. Just because these broadcast stations happen to exist outside the well documented industrialized world doesn't mean they are suddenly not notable. Sourcing in other "CNN Speak" International markets may be more difficult to find, but it does not wipe out wikipedia's responsibility to provide information as available. Trackinfo (talk) 10:14, 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. Noting that the sole "Keep" vote, while removing an inappropriate source, did not advance a policy based reason to keep the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dillagi (TV channel)[edit]

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

This article about an Indian television channel abysmally fails WP:GNG. The three "sources" provided are really one press release repeated by various low-qualiy online outlets. Brianhe (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've removed the press release source. ЖunalForYou ^☎️^📝 10:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does that improve WP:GNG requirement? Also did you notice that the two remaining sources reprint the same press release that you deleted? – Brianhe (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 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 22:38, 14 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 19:44, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Wood Recycling Project[edit]

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

I'm unable to find reliable sources to show it meets the GNG — Rod ^talk 16:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only ref is a link to their website. NN community project. Szzuk (talk) 21:22, 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 19:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Risker (talk) 05:31, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Quṣayy Abū al-Siʿd[edit]

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

Okay, maybe I'm missing something. Not one of the existing citations appears to mention the subject. The last two of which are simply a blog. Searches turned up zero on any of the engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only working links are in Arabic (yes I know foreign-language links are not automatic causes for disqualification) which, however, have not been translated to clarify how this individual is notable. Article as it currently stands does not demonstrate notability. Quis separabit? 02:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searches do not turn up zero. There are different spellings of his name, such as Sheikh Qusay Abu S’id. Blogs are not disreputable on the Arabic web as they are on the English web. Several notable scholars working in Islamic Studies in the West are students of Sayyid Quṣayy, who is well known in Iraq (try putting his name into a search engine in Arabic). If you search the websites that constitute the references in notes 6 and 7 (using Sayyid Quṣayy and Sheikh Qusay respectively), you will see that two such scholars derive their scholastic credentials from him. The entry will be expanded and better referenced when time allows. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Şahn-ı seman 1240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and is the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - none of which help his notability. Regardless of what the Arabic web says, Wikipedia policy is that most blogs are unreliable, and those contained in the article wouldn't pass the RS test. And notability isn't inherited from his students. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Could you define "notability" in that case? The normative lexical sense is "worthy of attention, or notice; remarkable". According to the website that forms the references for notes 2 and 6, Sayyid Quṣayy is "one of the rare inheritors of the later Ottoman curriculum in its fullness." Now, rareness is a synonym of remarkableness, as any thesaurus will tell you. Incidentally that website, iequran.com, in one of the most major web and print scholarly encyclopedias of the Qur'an. Moreover, as it says in the entry, this scholar is one of the rare preservers of branches of knowledge that are almost extinct, such as astrolabe and traditional Islamic astronomy. Yes, there is no reference included for this, but if all the information in English wikipedia articles was also available elsewhere, there wouldn't be much to distinguish it, would there? Wikipedia also performs the function of providing information that is not entirely easy to find on the internet, surely? Moreover, wikipedia editors must be context-sensitive. Masters of traditional Islamic sciences are not very common, and so I think that having prominent students clearly demonstrates notability. It is not like being a high-school teacher who just happens to have prominent students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Check out WP:GNG for the general notability guidelines. One of the criteria is depth of coverage, mentions are not given anywhere near the same weight. At GNG, you'll find links to other sets of criteria, depending the type of individual (e.g. athlete, scholar, etc.). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:09, 14 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 19:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having a hard time finding anything at all about the subject. Considering that he's from Iraq, I tried searching for the Arabic version of his name in GBooks and GNews, but to no avail. Many youtube videos though. It also appears that we're dealing with a living person, so unless better sources appear, this article should be deleted asap. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead and delete the entry. It's rather disconcerting just how much things are geared toward rewarding and celebrating pronouncements that a page should be deleted, based on very scanty evidence and superficial "research". There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere who would find calls to delete this page laughable if not offensive, but the last poster "can't find him on GBooks and GNews". Better delete the page then. Congrats for the truly remarkable scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you've had 3 weeks to improve the article, instead we get the sad diatribe above. Sad. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Şahn-ı seman 1240: Just because you say he's notable, does not make him instantly notable; reliable sources are needed to prove this. We have these rules on Wikipedia to prevent any random guy from having an article and spreading lies. For example: I could equally say that I'm the last master in the art of medicine as taught by Ibn Sina, but would you believe that, if not a single book or newspaper even mentioned me (let alone devoted an entire chapter) being such a master? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:11, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luckie & Company[edit]

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

Non-notable ad agency. No real sources; no real claims to fame, either. Calton | Talk 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unacceptable and non-notable with no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 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 19:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems self-promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject only has local sources or press releases to substantiate all the lengthy information currently on the page. Promotional as well. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG, and currently simply a promo piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is to Keep, The sources kindly provided by Cunnard meet GNG so wrapping it up as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Thru the Bible[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and this. This has also existed since August 2006 with not much better change and actually simply more unhelpful changes. Pinging past users David Haslam, Just Chilling, DarkAudit, and Benzband and also users interested with this subject StAnselm, Johnpacklambert, The Cross Bearer and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Churches are not inherently notable. Poorly sourced. One press release, a self-source, and an article that's actually about another subject. That's not significant nor independent. DarkAudit (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a church , exactly, but a non-notable provider of educational services. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presentism is a common problem in the looks noms and editors take as they work through the long lists of articles up for AFD. It is true that a quick search on, say, news google (here: [1], seems to indicate that this is a non-notable organization. The tip-off that induced me to look deeper is the 5th item in that search, an article from Christianity Today indicating that the guy who started this organization/movement stepped down from his subsequent mission in 2006, this, to me, indicated the need to look further back than news google or the first few pages of searchs. I logged into Proquest Newspapers and up popped Hundreds of article in reputable daily papers about a movement/program of Bible study that appears ot have been in its heyday 20-30 years ago. The topic is patently notable; the article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to delete. I lasted edited the page 9 years ago. DFH (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The organization was significant in the late 20th century, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have added some citations; these make more than passing mention of the subject, but (so far) are not primarily about it. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Willis, Vanessa Urruela (1999-11-29). "Crash Course on Bible Gives Basics in 4 Hours - "Walk Thru the Bible" Gives Participants of All Ages Bible Basics in a Short Session Using Visual Displays And Memory Devices". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Several other North Carolina churches offered Walk Thru programs this fall, including First Christian Church in Kernersville and Pinedale Christian Church in Winston-Salem.
  Walk Thru the Bible Ministries offers programs on the New Testament, marriage, managing finances and general Bible study. The Old Testament course is the most popular because many people struggle to memorize its vast group of characters and events, said Kevin Keene, a Walk Thru Ministries spokesman.
2. Fenning, Esther Talbot (1993-12-31). "Bible Study Made Easy - Seminars Offer Walk Through Events of Old, New Testaments". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  The article notes:
  
  A Walk Thru the Bible is a history class without note taking.
  It's a global excursion in one day and a geography lesson with ancient rivers and valleys mapped out in church gyms.
  Most of all, according to its proponents, the seminars are memory retention exercises that imprint some 77 biblical events on the minds of participants.
  ...
  Hall explained that Bible scholar Bruce Wilkinson started the education ministry 15 years ago to provide an effective, entertaining and interactive way to teach the Old and New Testaments.
  As many as 3,000 seminars will be held next year in more than 20 countries, including Russia, said Wilkinson.
3. Kern, Joan (1996-03-22). "'Walk Thru the Bible' to Debut Marriage Seminar - Manheim TWP. Church Is Host for 1st Program". Lancaster New Era. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  The article notes:
  
  [Jim] Hall's organization [Walk Thru the Bible Ministries], popular in local churches for its Walk Thru the Old and New Testament seminars, is bringing a new product to Lancaster - a seminar called "A Biblical Portrait of Marriage."
  ...
  As in its other seminars, Walk Thru the Bible's new program will provide a workbook for participants, and its presentation methods will include group interaction.
  Wilkinson founded Walk Thru the Bible Ministries in 1976. Headquartered in Atlanta and Fort Mill, S.C., the ministry has earned wide recognition for its lively seminars that help people learn the names, places and events of Bible times.
  On Saturday, Walk Thru's 10,000th seminar will be given in Bethlehem.
  Wilkinson's organization publishes a family of devotional magazines, and he has edited numerous publications.
4. White, Gayle (1987-01-24). "Thousands learn by taking `Walk Thru the Bible'". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Late on a Saturday afternoon at St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church, men, women and children stood and, while wiping their lips, flailing their arms and pointing this way and that, recited the major events of the New Testament in one minute and 51 seconds. In the `Walk Thru the Bible' system developed by Bruce Wilkinson, participants learn a code word and a hand motion for each major event in the New Testament. This sign is the symbol for tabernacle.
  ...
  Wilkinson developed the seminars "by accident" while working on a master's thesis as a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary.
  ...
  His fellow students enjoyed the word and motion presentation, and the program's popularity grew. When the invitations proved more than he could handle on his own, he trained his friends to conduct the seminars. As students graduated, they booked seminars for the churches they pastored and word spread further.
  When Wilkinson himself graduated from the seminary in 1974, he took a teaching position at the non-denominational Multnomah School of the Bible in Portland, Ore., and continued the seminars, mostly as a hobby.
  By 1976, however, Wilkinson, still in his 20s, realized he had a full-time ministry in the seminars. He and four other men resigned their full-time jobs and formed the nucleus of the organization.
  The article also provides detailed coverage of the organization's history, products, and reach:
  In 1978, the organization moved to Atlanta.
  He has been pleased with the city. "Atlanta turned out to be just what we hoped it would be."
  With an annual budget in excess of $7 million, 70 instructors in the United States and 20 overseas, the ministry has reached some 730,000 people in churches from Assembly of God to United Methodist.
  New seminars are on the drawing board. Three magazines for adults are being published and a fourth, especially for teenagers, is on the launching pad.
5. White, Gayle (2002-02-16). "Media with a Message: 'Jabez' author leaving Walk Thru the Bible - Wilkinson to take mission to TV, film". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Bruce Wilkinson, the Atlanta author catapulted to international best-sellerdom by "The Prayer of Jabez," is leaving Walk Thru the Bible, the ministry he founded 25 years ago to teach laymen the Scriptures.
  ...Walk Thru the Bible claims to be the world's largest Bible teaching seminar organization. The nondenominational ministry was host to more than 2,500 seminars last year in the United States, helping the people in the pews memorize the structure of the Bible through word association and gestures. Its international division reaches more than 50 countries.
  The ministry also produces books, devotional publications and magazines.
6. Bellone, Bob (1994-10-01). "A walk through the bible". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  The article notes:
  
  "Anyone with the desire can master the major events, the people, the places of the entire Old Testament in just one day," Bruce H. Wilkinson, founder and president, said in a promotional video.
  Wilkinson was a Bible teacher in Portland, Ore., when he began developing his Old Testament seminar in 1972. Walk Thru the Bible was incorporated in 1976 and now is taught in more than two dozen languages.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Walk Thru the Bible to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 14 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 19:02, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Abolitionist[edit]

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

Non-notable NGO. Most of these sources are mentions from affiliated organisations, and the rest barely even amounts to local media coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as there seems to be nothing more than some local coverage, not set for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 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 19:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State-level organizations of the sort are not generally notable. The national ones are . DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Beaver (FBI agent)[edit]

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

Not notable in his own right: there are zero cited sources about him personally, just a bunch of quotes from him in his professional role. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with typical Neelix intricate details, like how someone wrote obscenities in the dirt on the cop's car while he was giving an interview, like that is unusual. Also note the strange categorization to American spies. Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:03, 14 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 19:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a cop doing what cops do. Good on him for taking down what sounds like some nasty pieces of work, but I don't see how he is particularly remarkable. The sources are all either quotes from Beaver, routine coverage, or otherwise do not feature him as a major subject. Source #7 might help, but it leads to a 404 page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE, due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiwa (XMPP client)[edit]

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

Nothing on any of the search engines except for a few brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 14 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 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether this person meets WP:NACTOR, with the point about whether "multiple" means "two" or "three" seeming to be a sticking point. Whether one of her current projects will turn into a notable production is unknown at this point, perhaps when they have been released we can revisit this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Milligan[edit]

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

This nomination echoes what I said with my now-removed PROD as I initially considered AfD but it looked like an easy PROD but it's now been removed, here we are at AfD. Pinging interested subject users MichaelQSchmidt, [email protected], Wgolf and Davey2010 and I think Piotrus may also be interested as it seems this is the same IP who has removed countless other PRODs. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:ACTOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Can't find anything on her, No evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of below- Seems to pass NACTOR, Not entirely happy with the sources but hey that should improve as the years go on, –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MiracleMat (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:NACTOR. The key is what the three words in WP:NACTOR mean: "significant" (roles), "multiple" "notable" (films). Her role in The Gray Man was significant, and the film definitely meets wiki guidelines for notability. Her role in I Spit on Your Grave, which also appears to meet wiki standards for notability. So that's two. It gets problematical after that. Heaven's Rain was a notable film, but I don't think you could call her role in that significant. Same with her role in Rudderless, another notable film. She has a starring role in the television series, Sons of the Brotherhood, but that does not appear to be notable. So, of her already created work, she has significant roles in 2 notable films. So does "2" meet the "multiple" criteria? That's an iffy one. I would say 3 definitely does. So I was on the fence. However, she has significant roles in 2 upcoming films. As per Variety, filming has begun on Three Days in August, which will meet the notability guidelines. In fact, her role in that film is a starring one per this. That was the tipping point to me, with August, to me she clearly passes NACTOR. And she appears to have one of the leading roles in the upcoming film Element. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my vote to abstain, Onel makes some good points. User:onel5969, you may want to ping other participants of this AfD so they can consider your argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pinging SwisterTwister, Davey2010, and MiracleMat to reconsider, per Piotrus' suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed mine in light of onel5969's !vote. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Onel5969 but I'm simply not seeing how she's nothing more than a background character actress? There's hardly much to suggest better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:38, 14 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 18:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regarding Onel's justification for leaning "keep" while on the fence: until a film is edited and released it's really tough to gauge how significant/notable it will be. In fact, whose to say either of the two films mentioned will actually find distribution/release. Research into both production companies suggest non-notibility, a sort of film industry equivalent of local theatre. Otherwise, she seems a non-significant low-level performer. Maybe someday she'll achieve genuine notability, but to say so now seems premature. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cezary Paszkowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC notability. The few reliable sources merely make passing mention of the subject. - Mr X 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Serial deprodded without explanation by apparent sock/vandal - clearly fails WP:GNG; awards do not appear significant - encyclopedic notability is not demonstrated. One can have exhibitions and win awards without having encyclopedic notability. Scr★pIron^IV 21:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither a sockpuppet nor a vandal. Please strike that statement from your explanation. Thank you, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never happen. IF you had meant good faith with the PROD deletion, you would have registered a valid keep vote here. I think you need a comb; you might want to see about that hair. Scr★pIron^IV 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No rush The guy appears to be notable in Poland as a graphic artist - there are several legit-appearing refs via Google, but I do not read Polish. And removing a PROD is not "vandalism" here as far as I can tell. I think we should find someone who can look up the person in Polish sources before we obliviate him. Collect (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC) see Polish Wikipedia [2] and the assertion that he holds the title f "professor" which means that is also grounds for notability Collect (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Collect - See this discussion regarding the vandalism of removing this prod tag. This particular sock is discussed in the second bullet point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And? An AfD discussion is supposed to be about the article at hand, and not about who any editor is, or whether removal of a PROD is ipso facto "vandalism." The IP is not called a sock by the blocking admin, by the way, so might you tell us the concrete evidence that the IP is a "sock"? SPI results? Collect (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My purpose was merely to give you information regarding this editor, and was in response to your comment that removing a prod is not vandalism. The blocking admin does use the terminology "This is disruptive editing and some editor is avoiding scrutiny", which is pretty much the description of a sock. Furthermore, later in the discussion, the same blocking editor does state, "There is a good chance that all of this was done as a bit of a smokescreen. I believe that it is quite likely that pet articles of sock[']s had been prodded..." And the discussion clearly came to the conclusion that in this instance, removing this prod (along with others), was vandalism/non-constructive editing. Regardless, no big deal, was just trying to give you some info. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and vanity; article was created by a new user who has done nothing else. Also, agree that deprodding as noted is sketchy. MiracleMat (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Setting aside Polish Wikipedia different notability criteria (all professors are seen as notable there), what sources do I find? Local Polish portal has a brief info about his and his wives exhibition at the National Museum, Gdańsk ([3]). This may meet WP:ARTIST 4b. His work was briefly mentioned in mainstream Polish newspaper [4], but it probably doesn't count for in-depth. He also seems to collect reviews of his work at [5], but sadly, without proper bibliographical references. Still, they have titles and authors, and are thus treacable, for example I traced a longer review by art critic pl:Jacek Kotlica to [6], which is described at [7] as a publication (seems short lived and offline), published by the Gdańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Sztuki (Gdansk Society of Friends of Arts), a local NGO. I wasn't able to trace two others, however. I did, however, find one decent book reference. Gdanska grafika. Fundacja rewaloryzacji zabytkow Gdanska. 1995. is crippled by snippet-only view, But on p.24 I got lucky with what is at least a paragraph in English about his work: "Cezary Paszkowski was eminent in the generation of the seventies. His creative work is faithful to th workshop priniples of his masters - Zukowski and Karofak. He began his create wandering from the realization of etchings..." Not sure how long this entry is; if it was half a page or longer, it would probably be good enough for to be considered a pretty good source. As it is, it's borderline, but I am leaning towards keeping. Ping User:ScrapIronIV, User:Collect, User:MiracleMat - what do you think about those sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Piotrus and museums and exhibitions. Modern printmakers don't get much internet coverage. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 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 04:37, 14 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 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Sashov[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No evidence of notablity. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 14 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 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin assessment is delete after 3 weeks expired Legacypac (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR, and aside from 3 trivial mentions on News, absolutely zero on the other search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Not notable. clpo13_(talk) 17:36, 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. WP:SNOW. Well done Blofeld and SusunW for the improvements.

Sheraton Skyline Hotel at London Heathrow[edit]

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

I'm not sure of what to do with this one. References could probably be found, but they'd probably be mere notices or promotional--but it would depend how you looked on it. I can see a possible point for including all hotels of this level, or for merging them all in chains. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. There's five page of hits in google books, with notable journals like Investors Chronicle & Financial World and The Architect's Journal documenting it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prior to Blofeld's recent expansion I could understand the nomination but with the sources now present, it is clearly notable enough. Miyagawa (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets GNG. Lots of promotional materials about what Qatar Airlines plans to do, which is speculative and promotional right now, but could lead to future expansion. Has been in news for decades as a business conference center, major employer and hospitality center from what I find in the London papers. Though it is a business, historic information that is not promotional is present. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major 4-star hotel, article may have originally been poorly written by a PR person, but that's not a reason to delete, that's just a reason to edit the cruft. Looks like the gnomes have gone to work to fix it. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was just my unsourced stub I think haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, see, you could be paid to write that stuff! Montanabw ^(talk) 09:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has way too many quotes, but the coverage from where these quotes come from meet notability. I would suggest cutting those and the article would read less like a news blurb and be closer to non-promotional. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:58, 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. consensus seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary DeMoss[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not a notable person. The parochial sources are not discussing her as a person and so this article should be deleted. jps (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO. Not a notable person Govindaharihari (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO as it always has done. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to show any notability , thus fails WP:BIO KoshVorlon 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article certainly looks acceptable at first but with further inspection, my searches found nothing at all. Notifying past AfD commenter David Gerard. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I hadn't thought of that, although I have to say that article certainly seems troubled as well. SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the IFHRT exists anymore and it probably never did (it may have always been just a convenient legal fiction/propaganda piece). We might consider deleting/merging that article too. Maybe to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights which actually is more than a shell corporation. jps (talk) 13:16, 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 delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buimerc Corporation[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. None of the refs currently in the article relate to the company concerned. In a quick search of the web, I couldn't find much coverage in secondary sources. There's a few remarks in passing, as a result of the company's sponsorship of 7EmiratesRun, and a quote from chairman Siddharth Balachandran relating to a budget announcement. None of that satisfies the guidelines set out at WP:CORP. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an article on this company has been submitted twice before and deleted under speedy deletion criteria G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Whilst I don't believe the latest article reads from a WP:NPOV, assuming good faith it has been written in a slightly more encyclopedic fashion & hence I deemed it's intent sufficiently ambiguous that I brought to AfD to generate a discussion around notability (and hence whether it's worthwhile re-writing/cleaning up) rather than speedy deleting. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. very borderlone notability at best, and still considerably promotional A small trading company. The principle at issue is NOT DIRECTORY, which supersedes even the guideline of the GNG. `` - DGG, 23:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News and browsers found a few links but certainly nothing convincingly better. Notifying tagger Norvoid. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. neither the company or its managing director are notable. It can be difficult to judge the typical NE and SAsian conglomerates, and the only factor I trust is overall size: there are many much larger than his. I am not prepared to go very far in accepting the reliability for purposes of establishing notability in any source in that region--it's even more PR dominated than the US. Furthermore, the technique of writing about both a borderline notable firm and its borderline notable executive is promotional, and to be strongly discouraged. When they are both written by the same spa, I assume a conflict of interest, and a very likely violation of our <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use> (and generally <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure>) The best course is such cases is to remove them until a npov editor appears DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 27 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. Sandstein 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nurungul Tohti[edit]

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

Some notability is existing, but it's very shaky Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: While an interesting story. nowhere near the standards of WP:NOTABLE. -O.R.^Comms 04:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no long term notability. Kierzek (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the sources: she's not just notable for the abduction of her son, but the fact that she continues to work as an activist. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep Very much a borderline case but has received some coverage for activism including in books. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep on the basis of coverage found. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, passes the general notability criteria.—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Most of what I see falls under WP:ONEEVENT... which sources discuss her activism without focusing on the kidnapping incident? She is an admirable person, but as much as I support such activism, not every activist who gets ONEEVENT spotlight is notable. Ping me if better sources are found. User:AusLondonder: which books? I see nothing on Google Books other than a reprint of the RadioFreeAsia article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Piotrus:, I fixed up the article a bit and found that she was mentioned in TIME. Plus her situation is ongoing because of the charges of racism she's taking to the Chinese government. The situation started as one event that has snowballed into something else. It would be nice if anyone who knew the language could look up some local info... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Megalibrarygirl: Thank you. I am really sympathetic towards her story, but I still see it as a ONEEVENT case, and not every activist, even not every detained one, is notable. I'd really like to hear from Chinese and even more relevant, Uyghur language readers, if there are any better sources. I'd settle even for a short bio of her on an activist homepage, describing what else she has been doing as an activist. Anyone? Also, I wonder if this could be salvaged as a notable event...? Worst case, perhaps the content could be mergeable somewhere... Hmmm. Perhaps into Kidnapping in China? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Won't hurt to relist to get more input to achieve better consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I think input from those who know Chinese would be very helpful and I'm also amenable to moving the content to another area, like you suggested. Thanks. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Megalibrarygirl: I've posted requests for comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Central_Asia#Can_anyone_save_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNurungul_Tohti.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Can_anyone_save_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNurungul_Tohti.3F. Not sure what else we can do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's borderline, however, I'm of the opinion that since this person is noted as an activist in China it's notable and the issue we are all having here has something to do with a language barrier. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MurderByDeadcopy: So you say you've found the sources that "this person is noted as an activist in China"? Do share, do share. Regarding language barriers, please see WP:MUST --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you've misunderstood what I stated, however, I will put my fav wikilaw here, WP:IAR! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 04:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Megalibrarygirl and Talk. Still in the international news three years after the kidnapping. Martinogk (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is light but ongoing. Multiple arrests, ongoing activism etc put this beyond ONEEVENT. Jbh ^Talk 11:59, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. The Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography entry linked at the bottom is primarily about his father. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ships named in his honor - see USS Wainwright. Non-notable people do not get U.S. Navy vessels named after them. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer. No special notability. Having a ship named after you is not necessarily proof of anything, especially when the ships are named after the whole family. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Does the Royal Navy name ships after random non-notable people? Do they just draw names? That's not how it happens in the United States. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy actually almost never names ships after people at all. Only Royals and senior military commanders. Many American ships are in fact named after people who aren't really very notable in a Wikipedia sense. Just because the ship is notable doesn't mean its namesake is. Forgetting for a moment that they named a ship after his family, take a look at this chap's bio and tell me why exactly he is notable. A lieutenant who was killed in action, that's all. There are many, many thousands just like him. He is not himself notable. The family as a whole may be notable as one that produced several officers, but individual members (except the admiral, of course) are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- How far down the ranks do we treat people as notable? Captain of a capital ship might just qualify to my mind, but I do not commonly edit in this area. The series of US ships are probably named for him (as a captain killed in action), which may point to some notability in the eyes of those who choose names. We have a series of AFDs on this family: if we keep anyone beyond the WWII general, it should be him. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three ship articles explicitly state they were named after three, four and finally five family members, otherwise they would have been named the USS Jonathan Wainwright rather than just Wainwright. Captains of capital ships definitely don't qualify on their own; you have to be an admiral for an automatic pass. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, a revenue cutter is most certainly not a capital ship! Lieutenants do not command capital ships! Captains command capital ships. And as Clarityfiend says, even they are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I always expect that there will be articles about ship namesakes, at a minimum so that the persons details don't have to be discussed in each of the three ships that were named partly for him. In general, if a navy names a ship (or 3 ships) after someone (or several persons who were equally noteworthy at the time of the naming), they are almost certainly notable. Additionally, he is mentioned individually, with several paragraphs, in Johnson, Rossiter (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. The Biographical Society of Boston. He was a "Notable American". --Dual Freq (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the ship article(s), not notable per WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and SOLDIER. No significant coverage of him as a person. Jbh ^Talk 11:53, 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. sufficient consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial[edit]

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

There isn't a single acceptable entry on this so-called dab page. Three are partial matches, and the remaining two aren't even that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would a reader look in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary) for an adjective? Most people know that encyclopedia articles are always nouns, broadly construed. Obviously some people believe that some readers do look for adjectives like this, or they wouldn't create dab pages like this. How then can we best help that reader find whatever it is they're looking for? This dab page, PTMs and all, looks actually quite likely to be useful for that reader. Should it stay: WP:IAR? Does it do any harm (except to encourage the creation of more dab pages for adjectives, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Note that this article was Kept at AfD only 7 months ago: why bring it up again? I've improved it, by adding an {{in title}} link as a "See also", an asset to almost any dab page. PamD 10:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have a WP:SRD to the Wiktionary definition. WP:NOHARM is not a good reason to suffer its existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Determining whether an entry is a partial title match isn't about the exact structure of its article title. It is about determining whether the topic can be referred to by 'Interracial' alone. That's possible with the entries on this disambiguation page, because interracial is an adjective. (We can classify marriage as 'Interracial'.) We do have more adjectives as disambiguation pages, as mentioned at WP:NOUN. Furthermore, per PamD, this disambiguation page serves the reader by pointing to relevant Wikipedia articles. Redirecting such a common word to Wiktionary doesn't. We can't compare it with less common adjectives like Normoxic, which probably wouldn't survive RFD if is was a redirect to an article. LittleWink (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Marriage as interracial? That's a terrible example. (Does anyone ever say something like "John and Min are in a happy interracial"?) Lebron James is tall; that doesn't qualify him for Tall (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: these terms all have a common denominator, and if a noun for it existed ("interrace"?), nobody would likely object. But it's an adjective, which makes it weirder. I just don't think the "weird" should be a factor for deletion. LjL (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Suggestion. I think we can all agree that some sort of article should exist. I'm just saying this page isn't it. Start an article called Interracial issues or something like that to provide a central place to tie these things together. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THE solution: Rename List of interracial issues (or topics). And lo, my monitor burneth and yet was not consumed. And a great voice issueth forth from the speakers and sayeth unto me: "My people hath forsaken the guidelines and worship false matches. Therefore, go ye among them, smite them upon the left and upon the right and upside the head with minnows until they see the error of their ways." Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like "issues". Wouldn't that imply those are intrinsically problematic things? LjL (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then "topics". That's surely neutral enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's oddly named, I'll give you that. But it seems to be a perfectly benign page. Rename or rework it if you think it needs it. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:56, 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 this is a well covered and notable event. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Laszlo tripping incident[edit]

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

Article fails WP:Notability and also contains several factual errors. Wikipedia is not a political forum of current marginal events. Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This incident, and its aftermath, made the news all over the world, multiple stories on CNN, The New York Times. Please point out the factual errors. The article has multiple and very reliable references. Here's a few more just from a simple Google search, this incident is more than notable:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/hungarian-camerawoman-suing-migrant-tripped-facebook-article-1.2405057

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/migrant-crisis/hungarian-camerawoman-petra-laszlo-seen-tripping-refugee-in-video-to-sue-victim-20151021-gkf7w6

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tripped-syrian-refugee-starts-spain-football-life-200422722--sow.html

Neptune's Trident (talk)

See WP:NOTNEWS. This is absolutely a marginal, irrelevant event in the European migrant crisis. In addition to factual errors (e.g. the Hungarian journalist's name), the text contains POV and the article itself does not meet the formal and typographic criteria of Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe an international incident that went viral around the world and has gotten multiple articles in The New York Times and not to mention stories in pretty much every major news source around the globe is marginal then I think you may need to respectfully look up the definition. Again, you have not pointed a single factual error (other than the spelling of the journalist's name), the text in the article is all backed up from the news sources linked in citations in the article, the quotes in the article are also taken from reliable news sources, the citations for every quote is listed in the article. Also, just because you feel a Wikipedia article doesn't meet "typographic criteria of Wikipedia" then the article can simply be tagged so other editors can improve it rather than delete an article about an incident with MANY major notable sources. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International incident? Where? I can't see it. This is only a short trivia during the European migrant crisis, Wikipedia is Not Newspaper. The case did not generate lasting coverage. I also suggest you should read WP:NPA. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors seem to misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS - which states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". This is not a routine news story. If this had been in the United States no dispute would have existed about this article. Kim Davis (county clerk), who refused to a marriage licence to same-sex couples has received significant Wikipedia coverage and a deletion nom about her resulted in Snow keep. This article needs improvement but that is never grounds for deletion AusLondonder (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care Kim Davis. This discussion is about an unrelevant event. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's important it should go in the subject's BLP. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the subject does not have a BLP. It is unquestionably important and received massive media coverage and also commentary globally. AusLondonder (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See, I don't think she should have a BLP, per WP:NOTNEWS "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." I can certainly understand how some people feel this is not an "enduringly notable event." And yet in the massive torrent of suffering this one stupid relatively minor act of hers seems to have captured the attention of the world. No idea how I'd !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well sourced and notable event, with additional coverage continuing in the aftermath. HuffPo, Washington Times, Guardian, CBCnews (clearly a global phenomenon) have follow up articles in the last couple of weeks. Scr★pIron^IV 22:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... news that a certain unimportant Muslim man earned a marginal job at a Spanish football club. Very important info for the English-language Wikipedia lexicon... It is enough to mention this incident in two sentences at the European migrant crisis article. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that everyone is equally unimportant/important in this incident. It's not about who he was, or the quality of the job he got. The argument to keep isn't based on those factors, surely. Oh and comments like "unimportant Muslim man" isn't going to convince people still on the fence, like me, that this nomination isn't fuelled by reasons other than Wikipedia policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Good faith. This Muslim person, Your or me are "unimportant" persons. Anyway, I don't care your presumption, I just follow the Wiki rules. I suggest, you should read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't see how WP:SOAP even apples. You may argue that it's not lastingly notable, but it's not an example of soapboxing: it's written neutrally and doesn't fix any of the criteria for SOAP, from what I can see. I'm not seeing a coherent argument here. Change to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good sourcing, aftermath has also been covered. etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk being cynical, Norden1990 is actually from Budapest, Hungary, or so their Wikipedia user page says. This incident happened in Budapest, Hungary. Perhaps Norden1990 has have some sort of personal agenda or bias because this incident reflects badly on the city and country they are from? Perhaps not, but just thought I'd mention it. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attack and anti-Hungarian sentiment. Anyway this incident happened in Röszke at the Hungarian-Serbian border. Another factual error, I'm just sayin'. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are wrong, however, this incident received significant media attention including commentary globally. I cannot see a single ground for deletion. Hungary is certainly developing a reputation for increasing anti-immigrant sentiment and intolerance. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your POV pushing? The Guardian is not a source for that, especially after several "refugee" camps and flats set on fire in the preceding weeks and months in Germany. The Wikipedia should contain facts and it is not the place for your biased and anti-Hungarian opinions. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The incident has indeed received significant media attention. I've cleaned up the rest of the article's references and removed some, it looks more presentable now, albeit imperfect. Let's wrap this discussion up, shall we? Unless anyone else wants to chime in. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was an important event in the refugee crisis and one of the most significant in terms of coverage. I don't think the lede appropriately summarises the article/incident though, and could do with re-writing by someone able to do so without too much repetition.
I think this is a typical "fifteen minutes of fame" event that was way blown out of proportion. It should be mentioned in the article on the migrant crisis, or in an article about anti-migrant sentiments in Europe, but it's not significant enough for its own article. Also, I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia joining the global cyberbullying campaign this woman has been exposed to. – Alensha ^talk 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Group[edit]

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

A very weakly sourced, somewhat promotional biographical stub of a living person (WP:BLP). None of the sources we have are sufficiently reliable or sufficiently address this subject to attest to his importance in the fringe world of natropathy.

While we have no policy against articles about fringe topics, including individuals who promote fringe topics we do not have a different standard for fringe biographies than normal biographies. We require that a biographical article should have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As yet I have been unable to identify a single WP:RS for this subject.

Also, we should be wary of linking to sources which make medical claims possibly in violation of WP:MEDRS. These are not suitable for establishing a subject's notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No cited sources mention the subject in-depth. He is quoted in a few of them, as he promotes his fringe medical theories. Delta13C (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell he runs a company that markets natropathic rememedies - the appearances and articles he contributes to all seem to be marketing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, importance not established. It's hard to believe the article is not simple self-promotion, since its creator has made no other edit. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, try as I may I cannot find anything more than off-handed mention of this person. Not enough to pass the WP:BIO ringer. WP:BLPs such as this need to have better sourcing. jps (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Uses lots of bad sources. If it stays it needs to be de-FRINGEd. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 27 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. I'm completely disregarding the walls of text about the mess this discussion has become because of reverts and edit wars and what not, and am focusing only on the views expressed about the article that was actually nominated, List of British engineers and their patents. Consensus is that we don't need that one. Any remaining confusion in other article histories, can, I hope, be sorted out editorially. Sandstein 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of British engineers and their patents[edit]

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

Article prodded, but prod removed by Andrew Davidson who doesn't seem to have read or understood the purpose of the page and the reason for the prod, so here goes:

"A list of railway engineers (other engineers seem to be suspiciously absent from this page) who have one or more patents, which is not a claim to notability. This page may be useful for a British train project (do we have such a thing), as a list of potential article subjects (some of them are probably notable), but is not a valid Wikipedia article in itself (people with patents but without Wikipedia article is way too self-referential)"

Changing the title (which Andrew Davidson already did), and scope, and contents of the page until it no longer resembles the page that was prodded is of course a possibility, but then the much more logical course of action is to delete the page that was, and to create a new page, with the new title and contents. I see a WP:PRESERVE link looming at the horizon, but when there is little to nothing worthwhile to preserve, it's better to just start over. Fram (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This seems to be deliberate disruption contrary to WP:POINT. The nominator is clearly aware that the page is being actively edited and that good sources such as the following are being added to develop and expand the article. The idea seems to be to spite the original creator of the page by deleting their work but this is explicitly contrary to our editing policy, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts.".

S. Peter Bell (1975), A Biographical Index of British Engineers in the 19th Century
Ian Glover (2012), Engineers in Britain
Robert Sharp (1993), Obituaries of British Engineers 1901-1920: An Alphabetical Index, Science Museum
Derek Walker (1987), The Great Engineers: the art of British engineers 1837-1987
Who's Who of British Engineers, 1966

Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- No, and I don't have to take POINT lessons from you of all people. Have you read the deletion nomination? If you want to create a new page listing British engineers, feel free to do so. Taking a page with a different title and different purpose, only because it is at prod and needs to be rescued, is the "pointy" violation, not the deletion nomination. I have no interest in spiting the original creator, my interest is in removing rubbish articles. An article of railways engineers with patents but without articles is not the same as a general article about British engineers, as you should be well aware of. Fram (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already, situation resolved, AfD can restart. We now have an article List of British engineers which is not up for deletion, and an article List of British engineers and their patents which is the subject of this AfD. Can we now proceed without further disruption please? Fram (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more clearly the problem? Are you saying we don't need both lists? JMWt (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this now confusing, the sequence of events may be helpful. As I understand it:

Fram prods List of British engineers and their patents
I remove the prod
I move the article to the title List of British engineers, which seemed simpler, and start improving it
Fram takes the article to AFD
I respond at the AFD and continue to improve the article
Fram uses their admin tools while involved to separate the page into two separate pages.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are agreeing we don't need this page, Andrew D.? JMWt (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned this is one page; a page about British engineers. This is a notable topic per WP:LISTN and so there is no occasion to be deleting anything. As Fram's action was improper, it should be reverted, before we get further confusion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we just delete this page as everyone seems to agree it isn't needed, and keep the other one. Not sure we really need to revert anything. JMWt (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's my suggestion as well. Fram (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, everyone does not agree. I don't agree and the original author has not been agreeing with Fram's deletion spree either. The list in question should be retained to provide proper attribution of the history of this topic. The engineers who patented their various inventions are probably notable and one of the purposes of such lists is to help us build the encyclopedia by producing pages about them too. I've just gotten started on this and have lots more to do. Fram should please revert the history split, which was made without consultation or consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My history split reverted your change of both title and purpose of the page, "which was made without consultation or consensus" and to score a point to boot. Both articles now have the correct attribution. That you got the idea for a list of British engineers (so far empty) from the list under discussion is quite possible but not needed in the attribution. Lists of people explicitly meant for those who don't have an article but may be notable belong in userspace or projectspace, not in the mainspace. Having a patent or being an engineer is not a claim to notability though. Fram (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The List of British engineers now has a bogus edit history with a misleading statement made in Fram's name: "This article was created by User:Andrew Davidson whose name has been lost in the history split." I did not create that other article; I was editing the article we have here, contents and all. The edits which properly show my actions have been obfuscated:

08:16, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page List of British engineers (temp) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: History split)
08:17, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) restored page List of British engineers (temp) (1 revision restored: History restore for new article)
08:19, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page List of British engineers (temp) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: History split)
08:19, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) restored page List of British engineers (temp) (33 revisions restored: History split)
08:20, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) moved page List of British engineers (temp) to List of British engineers and their patents (History split) (revert)
08:24, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page List of British engineers (temp) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)

The claims made that these numerous deletions are "non-controversial" seem quite outrageous as they all happened after this AFD discussion had started. Fram should please revert their rewriting of the true edit history. Andrew D. (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G6 can be used for housekeeping and for routine (non-controversial) cleanup. My deletions and restorations fall under the "housekeeping" part. The full summary is the standard indication of what G6 can be used for. In the new article, which I attributed to you, is no attributable content from the previous article or editor left. All that remains is the inspiration you got from it. But feel free to edit the article and add an edit summary comparable to mine but with what you see as the proper attribution, if you want to have the name of the editor in the history. If you try to keep the article on AFD "because it is needed for attribution" though, then you are clearly wrong here. It should be judged on its own merits, not on the existence of another article you wrote on top of the existing one. Fram (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These actions were controversial because they were done after the AFD had started and seem intended to change the basis or outcome of the discussion. If Fram felt that such actions were appropriate they should have presented them in the discussion and then let the community comment on them to determine consensus. Proceeding unilaterally was quite improper because Fram was already a party to the discussion and their actions tended to conceal the full history of the matter by deleting numerous page versions. I have been attending AFD for nearly 10 years now and cannot recall any precedent for this. The relevant policies indicate that such action is improper. For example, WP:INVOLVED, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." I think we need a truly uninvolved admin to sort this out and so I'm pinging Anthony Appleyard who has good experience of complex edit histories and is not otherwise known to me. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted List of British engineers (temp), so everybody can see its edits. It has no talk page (deleted or undeleted). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: I think you by mistake removed a very large part of this discussion when you replied (you probably replied to the edit where you were pinged, not to the then current version of this debate). While most of it can probably safely be hatted as more heat than light / repetition of the same arguments over and over again (and I mean from both sides), I don't think it was your intention to delete all of it without even noting it here. Fram (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text replaced by Andrew D. (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC):-[reply]

On the contrary, it were your own actions done after the ProD that were controversial and seemed solely "intended to change the basis or outcome of the discussion". Changing the title and radically changing the scope of an article = creating a new article, not improving one. Your actions very strongly give the appearance of wanting to score a point in your battle against deletions, no matter what tactics you need to use. Feel free to raise this wherever you like, but be sure to describe your own actions honestly as well. You have not yet explained how changing an article title and scope completely is the same as improving an article instead of creating a new one. You also haven't explained what the problem is with the current situation apart from some process wonkery. Is the new article "list of British engineers" a problem? I guess not, it's what you proposed. Feel free to turn it into a real list though, there are many hundreds of British engineers with articles already. Is anything lost from the old article so that it would unfairly influence the AfD? Again, no. Can we simply move on, let the new article grow and discuss the old article on its own merits? Fine by me and by the uninvolved editor who commented so far. So what reason do you actually have for going on about this apart from making your point? You created a muddy situation to rescue a prod, I cleaned it up with some IAR G6 actions which restored the status quo and gave you your wanted article. That this isn't common doesn't surprise me, normally editors don't go as far as you did in trying to rescue an article at all costs. Fram (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening the title of the page from List of British engineers and their patents to List of British engineers was not a radical change as the issue of patents seems quite peripheral to this. What we obviously want are engineers who have achieved something and patents are just one possibility. For example, I previously started the article about the Scottish engineer Robert Thom, and expect to incorporate such people in the list as it develops. I don't know whether they registered any patents but they are covered in A Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers in Great Britain and Ireland and so are a reasonable topic for us to cover and list. In any case, I was clearly engaged in making general improvements to the article and so starting an AFD and then multiple speedy deletions was inappropriate. Please see WP:BEFORE, "please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are you no longer able to make general improvements to the article (which article do you mean by know, the one you had in mind which is at the new title, or the one the original contributor had in mind which is at the old title and up for AfD). The "multiple speedy deletions" were housekeeping moves and history splits: all information you contributed is in the new article, all information that was in the original article is still there. Nothing has been lost, much clarity has been gained. I have not opposed your attempt to make a list of the notable engineers of Britain, your article is stil there waiting for your (or anyone's) contributions, at your preferred title. In what way is that a problem? Fram (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way we do things here. To start at the beginning, this matter started when Fram placed a {{proposed deletion}} tag on the page in question. This tag explicitly invites anyone to do all the actions I took, including renaming the page: "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so.". Fram should please not issue such invitations and then act surprised and hurt when someone actually does as they suggest. The best way forward in my view, is to rewind all this to the point before the AFD, when I was improving the article and we weren't engaged in this vexatious wikilawyering. This might be done by Fram withdrawing the AFD nomination and then undoing all that history split stuff. If they can't hack it then an expert like Anthony can perhaps advise. Then, if Fram wants to discuss the next steps or scope of the list, they can start discussion on the article's talk page (which is still currently a red-link). Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the way you like things to be done. I have no problem with people renaming a page to something more appropriate (like, in this case, "List of British railway engineers without a Wikipedia article". Renaming a page and giving it a completely new scope is not in the "invitation" though. I don't think you have explained yet what is the difference between what you have done and the actual creation of a new page, apart from keeping history in it which has nothing to do with the new page, and of course avoiding a deletion (the horror!). I'm not "acting surprised and hurt" though, I was and am genuinely surprised that you have sunk to such low tactics and can't get yourself to admit it. Hurt? Not really no, it's just a Wikipedia page. I notice that again (and again and again) you haven't indicated what the problem with the current situation is, how it differs from your stated goal of having a list of British engineers. You are mentioning "vexatious wikilawyering", but I have given good reasons why two pages with a different title and scope, one of them fit for inclusion but the other (probably) not, shouldn't share a history (and shouldn't be made to share a history as a means to avoid deletion, which is what you did). You haven't given good reasons apart from policy wonkery though why the current situation is not acceptable. In short, no, I won't take the actions you request and don't agree that they are needed. Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text replaced by Biscuittin (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC):-[reply]

I see a lot of heat here, but I'm still not understanding why everyone is unsatisfied by the suggesting of deleting one page and keeping the other. Why does it matter? Haven't you better things to do than personally attack each other like this? JMWt (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only Andrew Davidson is unsatisfied with that solution, not me. Yes to the rest of your post though, I'll mostly shut up now. Fram (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of List of British engineers and their patents. I propose to copy the text of the article to List of British engineers. After this is done, I would not object to deletion of List of British engineers and their patents. Does this satisfy everybody? Biscuittin (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to compile a list of people who may or may not be notable (having a patent is not a claim to noatbility), but don't have an article. That's what project space or userspace are for. Fram (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here. I am willing to accept the solution proposed by JMWt. Fram then said: "Only Andrew Davidson is unsatisfied with that solution, not me". Now Fram seems to have changed his/her mind. Biscuittin (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. What you propose is not the solution by JMWt (delete your page, keep the list of notable engineers), what you propose is to change the new page into your old page. Fram (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Should be a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day 2 checkpoint[edit]

Here's a summary of where we are now at the start of day 2. We now have three pages:

List of British engineers and their patents
List of British engineers (temp)
List of British engineers

Page 1 has Biscuittin's original text. Page 2 has that text plus my improvements in its history but reverted by Fram. Page 3 has the improvements without the original text. Biscuittin and myself seem to want page 2 or something similar. Fram and JMWt seem to want page 3 – an article without a body. My full position is that I want all this put back together as one, before the splitting started. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were interested in creating page 3, a list of notable British engineers. If you don't (and no one else takes it up soon) then it is indeed an empty page and can be speey deleted as such. Fram (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in developing Biscuittin's interesting start into a more general article. Page 3 is a redundant content fork with an inaccurate edit history. It ought to be deleted but that should wait upon the conclusion of this discussion as, in the meantime, people need to be able to see what we are talking about. To show the improper status of page 3, I put a {{CWW}} tag on it but Fram has reverted this. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fram is abusing his position as an administrator. He is proposing for deletion articles which he views as "ridiculous" (see my correspondence with Fram at User talk:Fram). That is a personal opinion, not a Wikipedia policy. I also agree with Andrew Davidson that the loss of article history was not in accordance with Wikipedia convention. Biscuittin (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a) Proposing articles for deletion is not an abuse of the admin position. b) I have clearly stated on my talk page that while there are pages I consider to be ridiculous (which, I hope, is my right), I have not nominated those for deletion (my first reply: "I even skipped rather ridiculous subjects", and my second reply, "I have not nominated it for deletion"). The ones I have nominated for deletion are the ones that in my opinion don't meet our inclusion policies and guidelines (no matter if I think them ridiculous or not). Most of those have been deleted afterwards by others, either as an uncontested prod or after an AfD. Some have been kept, that's the way these things go. User talk:Fram#List articles is the discussion you are referring to. Please reread it. Fram (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, we also have List of Cornish engineers and inventors. Biscuittin (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will try again to reach a compromise. As I understand it, Fram's objection to List of British engineers and their patents is that patents are not an indication of notability. I therefore propose to move to List of British engineers only those names which have references other than patents. Is this acceptable to Fram? Biscuittin (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another complaint I have about Fram is that he seems to be edit warring with Andrew D at List of British engineers and with me at List of Busways standard vehicle types. Biscuittin (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself more with our standards, policies, and jargon. I am not edit warring at all at the Busways article, and one revert at the list of british engineers is a very minor edit war (if even that) as well. That's two times in a row that you make clearly incorrect statements about me, presumably in an attempt to discredit this AfD. Perhaps you can explain instead why a list of people without Wikipedia article is a good mainspace list subject (never mind why a "list of British engineers" only seems to consist of railway engineers, even after nearly three years). Fram (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion with Fram at Talk:List of British engineers which could be relevant to this discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed several compromises but you have rejected them. You now expect me to understand Wikipedia jargon despite WP:Jargon. Biscuittin (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use jargon like "edit warring" correctly, then yes, I expect you to understand it as well. That means e.g. not pointing to pages that are not applicable: WP:Jargon is about writing articles, not about conducting discussions. But I'll make a compromise counterproposal: why don't we just move List of British engineers and their patents to User:Biscuittin/List of British engineers and their patents, where you can use it as a basis for new articles and don't have to worry about things like WP:CSC, but the work you put into it isn't lost? Fram (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider this but I think the other contributors to the article should be consulted. My main aim is to promote collaboration between editors on the creation of new articles and this is much less likely to happen if the article is in my userspace. Biscuittin (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other contributors, this[8] is everything that was done to the list between your creation in 2013 and my prod this month. Some cosmetic changes, not one syllable of meaningful content though. If you agree, it can be moved. If you would prefer to have it in project space instead, just suggest a location (do we have a wikiproject british railways or somesuch?), it might indeed improve the chances of collaboration. Fram (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of British engineers and their products is very useful and relevant. Engineering has been very important in Britain since the Industrial Revolution started. I should know :: I was brought up in a heavy-engineering-related household, and my father was an engineer (in the British word usage sense). I knew what ferrite and pearlite and martensite and eutectics etc were BEFORE I knew much about Noddy and suchlike. KEEP and add any more information found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)
- Anthony, that's what List of British engineers should become, and that one isn't up for deletion. The question is whether the List of British engineers and patents, a list of railway engineers without Wikipedia articles, should be kept, deleted, or moved to user- or projectspace? As it stands, it fails WP:CSC. Fram (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, page List of British engineers and patents has never existed, as deleted or as undeleted. I take it that you mean List of British engineers and their patents. Best make all the engineers' names into redlinks, so the redlinks will prompt people who know the history of engineering into making them into bluelinks. A list of industrial engineers without Wikipedia articles would be useful as a starting point for people to know the names so they can write Wikipedia articles about them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanted articles lists don't belong in the mainspace though, but in project or user space, see WP:CSC and general practice. But thanks for correcting my link, I indeed meant the page you said, not the one I mistakenly typed. Fram (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stub-type information currently in page List of British engineers and their patents is much more useful than no information at all, and readers can follow up the external references given. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Which doesn't address my point at all, it's just WP:ITSUSEFUL. There is no evidence that this people are even notable (though some of them undoubtedly are). Fram (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is turning into a debate about Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Going back to the articles, I am quite happy to drop "and their patents" from the title of my article and merge it with List of British engineers. Biscuittin (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted Anthony Appleyard's suggestion of red links and I will continue to expand the article until a decision is made about its future. Biscuittin (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the original list. The criterion that the engineers not have articles is very odd indeed. How can you leave out someone like James Watt? A list of British engineers is fine. Descriptions of notable patents are also welcome, but not cryptic identifiers ("GB336599") and numbers ("Three patents, two jointly"). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could see these "cryptic identifiers ("GB336599") and numbers" and look up in sources and replace them by descriptions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3 checkpoint[edit]

We still have three pages:

List of British engineers and their patents
List of British engineers (temp)
List of British engineers

As they are all under discussion together (effectively a group nom.), I have made sure that all pages have the AFD banner and have restored the title of the AFD to its original, reverting Fram's move. Anyone interested in list of British engineers, under whatever title, should thus be prompted to join the discussion and help us determine consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...And undone again. No one is arguing for the deletion of List of British engineers, and the (temp) page wil be redeleted after this AfD is finished one way or the other. Only the "patents" page" is up for discussion. This never was a group nom, and please don't try to disrupt this AfD any further. Fram (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fram's action was repetitive in nature and so was edit-warring. Aditionally, they used admin powers to delete again while involved, leaving more redlinks behind. Their comments here are incorrect. I am arguing for deletion of the page which they created as improper cut/paste (page 3 in the list above). The page currently named as temp (page 2) should be retained as the proper development of Biscuitin's original. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of List of British engineers and their patents. I have made several attempts to reach a compromise but these have all been rejected. I now try again. Let us move the article to List of lesser-known British engineers. This explains why it does not include James Watt (who is well-known). We do not need a complete list of British engineers because we have one at Category:British engineers. Alternatively I am willing, in principle, to move the article to User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers but this is not my preferred option. The reason is that I want the list to be a springboard for the creation of new articles by multiple editors, not just by me. This is less likely to happen if the article is in my userspace. Biscuittin (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia doesn't like precedents, but I do, so here they are: List of lesser-known Loloish languages and Lesser known temples of the Hoysala Empire. Biscuittin (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those will have far fewer entries than a list of British engineers.

This is a very long list. It is beyond WP's editing model to make more than a tiny dent in it. Such an article, and its inevitable fragmentary nature, would not be a benefit to WP as it would be too biased in favour of games designers, pokemon creators and fictional star trek characters.

OTOH, categorization could do so rather better. DBpedia (and I know how unpopular that is hereabouts) could even write this article automatically from such categorization and the leads. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get this settled so I propose to move the article to User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me. Fram (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of British engineers is ok, the other should be deleted. I'm not fussed about what happens to the article history, it would be a useful list and filled over time irrespective of the above discussion. I'd suggest the new name should be List of historical British engineers and do a quick copy and past of any useful info. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, as long as the page is moved to somewhere known, to preserve it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections, I intend to move the page tomorrow, 28 Nov 2015. Biscuittin (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to Biscuittin keeping a copy of their work. However, the work which I did, based upon Buiscuittin's original, should continue to show this proper history while Fram's content fork, which tried to break and obfuscate this history, should be deleted. I'm not sure that Biscuittin should do anything while this discussion remains open as that's not the normal AFD process but Fram has been making unilateral moves, deletions and copies during the AFD and claiming WP:IAR. Biscuittin might follow that example but two wrongs don't usually make a right. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Andrew D. I will postpone the move to allow you to take whatever action you think necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 18:30, 27 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. Based on the striking of the only delete vote, and the withdrawal of the nomination. I would say projectify, but am unsure if that is a valid choice. Per SK#1. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of major opera composers[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR - more specifically , WP:SYNTH. Names have been cobbled together from ten sources, on a basis for which no justification is given, some of them with pretensions to be works of musical scholarship, others just general encyclopaedias, history books or other website lists. One of the website lists is now a dead link. Some of the sources date from the 1980s and 1990s and none is more recent than 2002 (the Rough Guide to Opera, not a reliable academic source). There is no attempt to define what is meant by a 'major opera composer' , indeed it is not clear whether the core topic is 'major opera' or 'major composers'. Gobbets of musical history are included here and there - most of these are from two sources, the Viking Opera Guide which dates from the 1990s, and the Thames and Hudson book of the 1980s, Opera: A Concise History. Neither of these have great pretensions today to being leading or notable sources. The inclusion in the list of minor composers such as Smyth, Pfitzner, Pepusch and Schreker gives them inappropriate prominence. In short, an unencylopaedic merger of information glued together from randomly assembled sources. I started trying to clean it up but then realized that it just wasn't worth it. Smerus (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn by nominator - given peferences for 'projectiying' and/or discusson at WP:Opera. See discussion below--Smerus (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful, notable. A useful counterpart to the bloated and overwhelming Opera corpus, which doesn't even have an easily understood title. Unlike more subjective or nebulous subjects or terms, I don't think it's any great feat to determine what constitutes a major opera composer and what doesn't, and any disputes can be resolved on the article's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with the criticisms Smerus has raised. However, I do think some sort of editorial criteria could be made to solve those issues, and a useful high quality list could potentially be put together. Maybe the opera project can come together on this one to improve the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reading the above two comments, would 4meter4 and Softlavender perhaps clarify what they understand by the article title? If, for example we are talking of Composers of major operas, we are not talking about the same thing as Major composers of opera. Leoncavallo and Mascagni for example might qualify in the first category (assuming 'major' is interpreted as 'frequently performed') but not in the second. Which raises the issue, in either case, of how we could define, and authoritatively reference, the word 'major'? To me it seems this could be a rather greater feat than Softlavender assumes. The operas most frequently performed are not necessarily by consensus the greatest operas. In Operabase's top 50 (for example), works by Johann Strauss II, Kalman, Lehar and Humperdinck appear, but (for example) not those of Mussorgsky, Borodin, Handel, Monteverdi don't. And Beethoven just makes it at no. 50. Or if we look at the 50 composers most often performed, those not making it include (for example) Borodin, Gershwin, Saint-Saens, Hindemith, Meyerbeer, Halevy, Schoenberg.....If other editors are prepared to work on these questions then I will gladly withdraw the nomination and work with them to reconstitute the article. But if the attitude is 'keep because somebody could probably solve the problems at some indeterminate time', then let's delete it now.--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are content issues, and if you take issue with a specific inclusion(s) or omission(s), discussion(s) belong on the article's talk page. I for one have no problem with the article content in its current form. Also, the previous AfD for the article closed early (was withdrawn) as a SNOW Keep. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to participate in a discussion of this kind on the article's talk page. I don't think an AFD is the correct forum for this conversation at this point. Honestly, I wish this concern had been raised at the opera project page before being brought to AFD. I would like to know what User:Voceditenore, User:Folantin, User:Antandrus, User:Kosboot, and User:Gerda Arendt have to say about this article. I would like to get a consensus of what direction the project wants to move as a whole when it comes to this article. It may be that there is a strong consensus to restructure the article, or that there is support to leave it alone, or that deletion is the best option. Regardless, that conservation should have been had first before bringing it to AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree to moving the discussion to project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- agree with Gerda and others -- it should be discussed at the opera project. There may be a way forward in rethinking the list or just updating it. Antandrus (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy in these circumstances to withdraw the AfD nomination and look forward to the discussion.--Smerus (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I feel the entire concept of the article needs to be rethought. What does "a major opera composer" mean and by what criteria is this determined? Number of operas composed? Number of operas recorded? Number of operas performed? These are all variable criteria. If one wants to be objective, one could use "number of operas composed" (an answer to the question "who composed the most operas?") though I'm sure there would be a number of obscure composers, while a few significant composers wouldn't make the list. If one were to use criteria of number of operas performed or recorded, that information is difficult to ascertain (does one include only commercial recordings?) What about composers who composed prodigiously but of which there are no recordings? (generally I feel one should not use recordings as a basis for anything other than recordings). I guess I feel the idea of an article on "opera composers" is fallacious and that the content should be rolled into the article opera. - kosboot (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kosboot: Aren't all the questions you raise here better discussed on the talk page as suggested by (Softlavender—4meter4—Gerda Arendt—Antandrus—Smerus)? If you strike your delete !vote, someone can close this debate under WP:SK#1. Thanks. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list, started in 2002 and one of the Opera Project's earliest collaborations, is a relic from the "olden days" when this sort of approach and writing style was much more acceptable. It no longer is, in my view. Ideally, it needs not only a significant re-write, but also a complete re-conception, and probably re-titling. One thing I would ask is that at at the very least, this article be "projectified" rather than deleted outright, i.e. moved with its talk pages, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/List of major opera composers. It contains much useful information and is a valuable artefact of our project's history. The talk page archives are fascinating, and it was even the subject of an Arbcom case 9 years ago. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you guys, you all know me, amenability is my middle name! (Silent at the back there!) So what say we projectify the article as suggested by VdT (with whom I fully agree), I withdraw the AfD, and we discuss at WikiProject Opera how, if at all, the topic can be treated so as to be consistent with the present standards of Wikipedia?--Smerus (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually too late to withdraw because your initial withdrawal was not done properly and now there is already a delete !vote. See WP:WDAFD. If Kosboot withdraws his Delete !vote, you could properly withdraw using the steps in the WP:WDAFD; but if he doesn't, this will just have to go through the process and await an administrative close after the full 7 days. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the option to projectify the article if that is a viable option at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 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 delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of association football clubs[edit]

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

See previous deletion discussions on what is essentially the same article: first debate and second debate. There is no clear inclusion criteria for this article. For example, why do some clubs have their seasons from a few years ago whereas the majority have the attendance for the most recent season? Fails WP:NOTSTATS and appears to be WP:OR. Spiderone 12:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per past consensus. Giant Snowman 12:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Twice before deleted, not notable. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:OR — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:03, 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 delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Ayass[edit]

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

A wildly overdetailed and almost entirely unsourced article which is highly likely to be autobiographical (the single-subject author Twistedg seems to match Ayass's nickname, 'Twisted Genius'). Online I can only see the very briefest mentions, certainly nothing to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Clean-up tag has been on the article for almost 7 years with no signs of improvement. Time for the article to go! Sionk (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. OnoMak (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nothing but trivial mentions in searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Totally agree with the policy WP:BIO. I've tried searching for anything notable or significant, but nothing obvious comes up. Not everybody or everything is notable. Also the article seems to break just about every policy about neutrality. The subject himself states on the talk page that he's written much of the content. Seaweed (talk) 19:27, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ceiling[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 09:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 09:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 09:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 09:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as that's simply the best coverage he has overall, clearly not yet notable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches turned up lots of hits, but about the common term. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additional sourcing indicates it now passes notability criteria. Does not appear to meet any of the speedy keep criteria, however. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Chiodaroli[edit]

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

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as there's hardly much here and the best my searches found was only this (rbcasting.com) and there's nothing else to suggest this is keepable. It's also not surprising this hasn't changed much since starting in February 2012. Notifying PRODder AndrewWTaylor and familiar subject AfDers Onel5969 and MichaelQSchmidt who may have some insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per apparent failed WP:BEFORE, passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT. While his most significant television and film works are redlinks in en.wiki they are notable and they have articles on Italian wikipedia. Coverage in Italian is easily foundable ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), including articles in major newspapers such as La Repubblica ([14], [15]), Il Giornale ([16]) and Corriere della Sera ([17]). Cavarrone 08:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cavarrone I can assure I in no way "failed BEFORE" as I searched the best I could (which included several of the usual search methods) but I simply never searched Italian newspapers as I wouldn't have had the familiar capabilities with that. SwisterTwister talk 09:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, still I strongly suggest you to withdraw this one. The subject is beyond doubt notable and a well-known figure in Italy, I worked on the article to improve its sourcing. Cavarrone 10:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some of his TV shows with {{illm}}s to those articles that are not yet found on English Wikipedia, and I have added a bunch of {{cite book}}. He is obviously notable and meets both WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. I don't know if it is wise to think one can with any fairness pass sweeping judgements like "questionably notable and improvable" when one is only capable of finding one obscure web page and propose that "there's nothing else to suggest this is keepable", when one admits to not have capabilities to search the non-English sources. May I suggest a WP:SK#1 closure here to avoid further waste of community time. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:13, 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 keep. Consensus is that he meets WP:NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Copon[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as he only seems to have been best known for some work such as 11 episodes of One Tree Hill, Beyond the Break and Powers Rangers and the best links I found was only this, this, this and this (several of these links are also simply gossip such as for being cast as a likely Twilight film member). At best, this would be a weak keepable article and it may also be best to simply redirect to perhaps Beyond the Break (his best known and longest work?). Notifying past users Logical Fuzz, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Flyer22 Reborn and also familiar subject AfDers Onel5969, TheRedPenofDoom, [email protected] and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: It certainly seems that he lacks WP:Notability; I'll leave this matter in the hands of other editors. As for his best known work, I mainly know as him as Felix Taggaro from One Tree Hill, and, given the popularity of that show among teenagers and young adults at the time, I think he is known more so for that than any other role. The character's sister, Anna Taggaro, got more attention from the press, however. And so did the character's portrayer, Daniella Alonso. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Best known by me for another reason, Scorpion King, maybe the only work of his I've seen. As bad as it is, The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior is a clearly notable production and Copon was the lead. Night of the Demons is also clearly notable and he had a significant role in it. Also had significant roles in other ?notable films, BoyBand and Bring It On: In It to Win It. Had a full season as a Power Ranger. Enough roles for WP:NACTOR. He's also a reality show winner and one of People magazine's 50 Hottest Bachelors in 2005. On the coverage side, Manila Bulletin likes him. Looks like there was even two articles about him published on the same day (date of publication listed varies). "Fil-am actor-musician Michael Copon out to prove his worth as musician", Manila Bulletin, 9 April 2011 and "Rising int'l act Michael Copon proud to be Pinoy", Manila Bulletin, 9 April 2011. Also around then was "Fil-Am picked as front act for Bruno Mars concert in PHL", Manila Bulletin, 17 March 2011 and "Michael Copon almost played Jacob in 'Twilight,' Troy on 'High School Musical'", Manila Bulletin, 6 April 2011. Along with Ignacio, Angela V. (9 April 2011), "Michael Copon almost played Jacob in 'Twilight,' Troy on 'High School Musical'", Philippine Daily Inquirer. These were at the time he went to the Philippines as Bruno Mars's opening act. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Copon should clear WP:NACTOR fairly clearly, based on Scoprion King, Bring It On, One Tree Hill and Beyond the Break. But I'll add him to my list of actor BLPs that need better sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've added referencing from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Entertainment Weekly. I'll leave it to others to decide as to whether this establishes enough "notability", but it firms up my view that this article is a "keep". (It would be an even stronger "Keep" if I could get access to the press releases from the mid-2000's that used to be available from The Futon Critic. Oh well...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Keith Maxwell III[edit]

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

Seemingly questionably notable and improvable CEO of a company (for which I'm separately nominating the article for, both companies in fact) as the best links I found were this and this. Dennis Brown only simply protected the article from persistent vandalism but I'm not sure if he would've had any input and Boleyn also only made two edits but I know she often comments at these articles regardless but there simply aren't any other outstandingly pingable users and lastly I know DGG will want to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I protect, I don't check for quality, just the history, but had I looked at the actual content, I would have nom'ed myself as spam/vanity/etc. The uncited line "Maxwell has been praised by many who say his greatest asset as a leader is his flexibility." is particularly effective at padding the ego while not conveying any real information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' There's acleaner version from 2011 here. we could revert to it. The spam sentence was added by an editor who did that edit and nothing more here, and has stayed in ever since. The edit history is a little unusual is many respects. I note, though, that the Ernst &Young award is given not to one person a year, but to about 10--see the article on it. that award has been used for notability for about 100 people and companies; though some are indeed obviously notable, they should most of them be checked. The links are at [18]. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founder and CEO of a non-notable company. DOesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. (and my apologies, Boleyn, but I corrected what appeared to be a formatting error, hope you don't mind). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin assessment of consensus as Delete lack of sources and failure to meet WP:BIO Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Katembula[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable biography as the best my extended searches found was only this (one of the searches at the listed news sources), this, this and this. It's worth noting this has actually existed since June 2006 with hardly much notability and improvement and I think that's because he only seems be somewhat locally known. Notifying past users Fylbecatulous, StAnselm, PhilKnight, Fram and lastly African user Wikicology who may have some insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep SwisterTwister, please accept my apology for the extremely slow response. The subject of the article appears to meet WP:NMUSIC per this source as winner of Ngoma Music Award, a notable music award in Zimbabwe. I think the award is synonymous to The Headies music award in Nigeria. He had also been nominated for Kora Awards. Pinging Versace1608 for further analysis of the Ngoma Music Award.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is notable. He has received good coverage in reliable Zambian newspapers such as The Lusaka Times, Zambian Watchdog and Times of Zambia, to name a few. Winning his country's biggest award (Ngoma Music Award) as well as Africa's biggest award (The Kora Awards) establishes notability. Versace1608 (Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply due to the fact of the award winning, otherwise doesn't seem very notable. Logicequalslogical (talk) 00:33, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Liaqat[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Run of the mill news anchor FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:48, 14 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) 06:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the basic notability criteria for individual persons is not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks to the sourcing done by Megalibrarygirl. WP:BEFORE is mandatory. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauran Bethell[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being quoted in passing on a bunch of Christian websites and speaking at a conference doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is way more to this woman than just passing mentions in Christian websites. Please do WP:BEFORE. She is respected, testified before congress and yes, as a Christian she does show up in Christian journals, which is to be expected. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "respected" is not an explanation for why she somehow manages to pass WP:BIO, nor is testifying before Congress. Tons of non-notable people testify before Congress. The Drover's Wife (talk)
  - It is important, actually. Did you look at any of the resources I found? She was called in to testify because she is considered an expert on the topic by Congress. That leads to notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I forgot to add that she's also written about significantly in several RS, so she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:49, 19 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) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could not figure out how this article got here until I looked at its history and realized that Megalibrarygirl had improved the article enormously! Definitely passes GNC. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written and well referenced article on an important and notable person. Martinogk (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable activist, Sources are pretty crap and I'm finding nothing but mentions, Some activists are notable and some like this BLP aren't. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 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 consensus is to userfy, which I'll do if the creator, or anybody else, tells me that they do want the content to work on. Sandstein 20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese independent film[edit]

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

I've been trying to think of a way that this could be WP:PRESERVEd in some way. However it's so fundamentally a case of WP:NOTESSAY and I think WP:BLOWITUP is the only recourse, with the option of WP:USERFYing it for the article creator. What do others think? Am I being too harsh in calling for deletion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. As the topic of Chinese Independent Film is so eminently sourcable, perhaps this brand new article can be returned to its author as a user draft with an explanation of how to create and source a neutral article.. and it can be returned when more in line with WP:MOS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Such an article would provide important context to the films under this category, but it is essentially a personal essay at this point. If the creator or another interested editor would like to improve the article in draftspace, they can get it WP:REFUNDed once they have a plan or know how to write neutral articles. Esquivalience ^t 04:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so the creator can improve it according to Wikipedia policies and submit it to Articles for Creation when ready. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 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 delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Romania[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 01:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like the article has been gutted recently. Does this major pageant get covered every year in Romania? Of course.[19]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While I could find no significant coverage of the pageant (at least in English), there are some mentions, which btw is not sufficient to keep this article. Delete until better sources can be found.—UY Scuti ^Talk 08:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, i really don't want to have to go put in a slew of Romanian sources in this article. The Banner is not a pageant fan, nor am I, I just prefer improvement to deletion when a subject is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that I dislike pageants as such. It is more that I dislike advertising, promo, sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry what is unfortunately quite common among pageants. The Banner talk 17:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely true, and seen most often on the low-tier type pageant articles that you track down, and I'm glad someone is doing it. Its been my experience that Miss Universe and its constituent country articles will rarely if ever be non-notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is only correct for the bigger countries. The Banner talk 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 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 04:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources and poorly referenced. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 05:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Mingze[edit]

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

Not notable as WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing she did (attending this and that school or serving as volunteer in relief efforts) is notable on her own merits. And it's very obvious that this girl just wants to lead a normal life despite famous parents, and China no longer practices monarchy in any sense. Obama's girls also don't get their own pages. Timmyshin (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mingze meets GNG. Your belief that "this girl just wants to lead a normal life" is not relevant to WP policies regarding notability. As it states in the LA Times article,[20] the Chinese press do not mention her ever and online searches on her name in China are blocked. WP:NOTCENSORED. Additionally, Obama's daughters are minors. All other presidential children have their own articles. [21], [22], [23], [24] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTINHERITED: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."" Timmyshin (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTINHERITED refers only to people who do not meet GNG. GNG does not require anybody to have "achieved" anything on their own, only that they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It does not matter why someone has received coverage, whether it is because their father is president or because they won the Nobel Prize. WP is full of articles on children of heads of state for this reason. See Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (who lived all of two days) along with half the people in Category:Children of national leaders. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good argument but I definitely don't think Patrick Bouvier Kennedy deserves an article, and it seems that it has been nominated for deletion 6 times so I'm not alone. I do think Wikipedia needs to be consistent about celebrity children e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Jackson (actress) has been repeatedly deleted. In the case of Xi Mingze, there's an additional problem of lacking reliable coverage. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean the reverse, presenting hearsay or even worse, made-up stories, about a living person as facts, is what Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, needs. The Daily Mail: "one of her acquaintances, a Chinese writer, told The Mail on Sunday last night" "she is said to be protected by bodyguards". There's not a single verifiable fact. Who is her acquaintance, who were her bodyguards? Don't tell me Chinese secret agents will assassinate the Harvard classmate who informs Daily Mail about Ms. Xi. Out of all the links on the page, the only piece that seems reliable is the New Yorker one because it identify a source as "Kenji Minemura", a Japanese journalist unaffiliated with Harvard. But that article is really an editorial and tells us virtually nothing about her. This photo [25] according to several of the links is allegedly Xi Mingze's facebook/twitter picture, but how do we know that? What's her facebook/twitter accounts? The woman looks nothing like what we know for sure is definitely her a decade ago (released by China's official media) [26]. Ming Pao calls that bull and claims she looks like this [27] now, allegedly taken from her commencement, but somebody has since pointed out Harvard graduation gowns don't look like that. Now Sing Tao Daily is reporting that this woman from Xi Jinping's recent UK trip, behind Peng Liyuan is her: [28]. Clearly this woman also looks nothing like previous "identifications". The point here is we don't know anything about her. We don't know what she looks like, we don't even know her name. We think she is using a pseudonym (New Yorker/Minemura also claims that), as Xi Mingze was the name used when she was very young, but we don't know which name she goes by now, so how do we know anything about her? I think it's all speculation. Surely her secrecy (or China's) is of interest probably more so than her, but do we really need an article to illustrate this (Frankly I am more interested about her father's first wife "Ke Lingling", another of the censored keyword, but somehow she didn't get a page maybe because she didn't come to America?) Timmyshin (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Patrick Bouvier Kennedy survived six deletions is because he was the subject of persistent coverage by WP:RS. His article keeps getting nominated by certain people who don't know the guidelines and think he can't possibly deserve an article. And media debating about whether or not she is the person in the photo is totally not relevant. In fact it gives her more media coverage. Where in Wikipedia guidelines does it say we must know what someone looks like? And there is no dispute what her name is - Xi Mingze. Has Ke Lingling been the subject of coverage in multiple RS? Apparently not. We don't get to choose who is notable - the RS do that for us. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable in her own right, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Her biography reads like that any young person, she has done nothing of interest or note. And the sources confirm this; they are not about her but about her parents, or the more general phenomenon of Chinese overseas students, or some other topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People do not have to do anything of interest to have a WP article. If that were the case, 75 percent of the people on reality shows would not have an article. They just have to be the subject of coverage by reliable sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xi Jinping. Not independently notable.Antigng (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xi Jinping. Not notable in her own right, but if the situation changes in the future (a la Chelsea Clinton), the article can then be easily resurrected. -Zanhe (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Xi Jinping. The question of whether a subject merits a stand-alone article isn't the same as being notable (i.e. WP:GNG), but additional. That's why merges exist. I don't know if she passes WP:GNG, but there's so little information about her available that a stand-alone article doesn't look like the best way to go. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very persuasive argument raised above by User:Wikimandia. Firstly, it is clear she meets the criteria of WP:GNG. By the way, to the nom, she is not a girl. She is 23. This is a case of WP:GEOBIAS. Patrick Bouvier Kennedy lived two days but has an article in which editors have repeatedly rejected deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for others. Other presidents' kids doesn't really say anything for this one. Many people in Category:Children of national leaders are know for reasons besides being a relative. About 600 in that category, although some might not be in there. It's safe to say most don't have articles (let's say 190 countries x 10 presidencies each x 2 kids is well over 3000, and that's probably a low estimate). A Kennedy kid dying at two days, says his death helped to "spark" some medical interest, not really sure of the significance of that, only part of a sentence on it. Should it be a "Death of..." article? He's most well known for his death, right? Last two AfDs closed as no consensus, earlier ones are keep'd but are 4+ years old, might one day get deleted/redirected... Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rainbow unicorn - Interesting you assume all 190 countries have "Presidents" given the Head of government in the following countries is not a president: India, Australia, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea, Greece, Pakistan, Thailand, Japan, Bangladesh, amongst others. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 02:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep GNG, VIP. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 05:50, 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 speedily deleted by User:Prodego under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 09:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Kimmel[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG for me, other than his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel's show. JTtheOG (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete not notable, no references, poor wiki technical. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 05:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marriott India[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as this is the most sensible option, as discussed by voters and the editor who boldly redirected before it was reversed (NAC) Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is for a subunit of Marriott in India. There's nothing that distinguishes this unit that would require a standalone article. A redirect to the main article was undone by another editor as the target had little to say about the Indian unit. Whpq (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ADVERT, GNG, and no reliable sources. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 05:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is simply a non-notable part of a notable hotel chain. Notifying tagger DanielRigal. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is perfectly conceivable that there could be a valid article about a national subsidiary of a major international company like this, I see nothing here to demonstrate that this is the case in this instance. There are no references and not much of anything at all. I guess a little of what little there is here could be merged, if referenced properly. Obviously a redirect to the parent company would be sensible to have as it is a plausible search term. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1-800-PACK-RAT[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The problem is the usual: the company is a subject of a number of in-passing mentions, but there is no in-depth coverage outside press releases. This business exists, is doing well, and is even more socially responsible than on average - but nothing makes it encyclopedic. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep 50 locations sounds like a fairly significant business, but surely "serving 240 million people" is an exaggeration, and the only cite for that claim is their own website (which is broken anyway). The page sounds like it has just been lifted from their own publicity - but to me the issue here is about notability not the content. If the content can be written in a more encyclopedic way including information about the business that people might actually want to read (turnover, staff numbers, say) from secondary sources, I'd say keep. JMWt (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it seems more like a local company and I found no immediately convincingly better links. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional and non-notable . DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin assessment of consensus as Delete as not meeting WP:GNG and not a directory Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 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 Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bajo las riendas del amor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since April 2008. Article relies on a single source that is a broken link without an archived page, and even if it did exist, it probably did not make the telenovela meet WP:GNG. An internet search could not ascertain sources of more reliability, even searching for its Spanish title. Perhaps someone fluent in Spanish would be able to find sources, but I haven't found anything. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the link, which just moved to a different URL. I spent for that less than a minute.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I wouldn't even have known how to begin to search for that. Do you think the article meets notability guidelines with just that or not? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, this is a reliable source, but i am not sure it is sufficient. Last time I voted weak keep. Searching for the source was easy: The link contained the name of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is insufficient coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG. I'm not convinced by the terra source as it is primarily about the actress Geraldine Bazan not the subject. I have managed to find many passing mentions in articles about past cast members, but nothing significant. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 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. Sources have been provided and judging by the sources I'd say notability is there by a bare minimum, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easter (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced article that clearly does not meet WP:GNG. An internet search only reveals database entries and virtually nothing else. None of the information in "Production" or "Filming Locations" is verifiable at all. Created by a WP:SPI in relation to the film and its actors, probably someone who was involved in its production. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some coverage for the stage play ([29]) and I found this film review. We might be able to justify an article for the stage play that contains information about the film, I think. (The play doesn't have an article.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found this as well: [30] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Do you think that those two sources on the film are enough to justify an article on the film? I like your idea for making one about the play though and merging this into that. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally? Not really. It could probably pass the bare minimum, but it'd be much more beneficial to have one article on the play itself and mention the film in that article since that'd be a stronger keep on that end since we'd at least have three sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary keep for now per just meeting WP:NF. IE: Articles and reviews and information verifiable in Variety, Grand Island Independent, Indiewire, HBO, Indie Promos, archive of official website, Film in America. And as there is far more available on the play, I am absolutely fine with it being merged into a future article on the Will Scheffer stage play by the same name if or when that article is written. Until then. it can stand alone. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has sources,needs expansion46.208.73.116 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GCG（Gingko Cash Gateway service platform）[edit]

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

Unsourced, promotional corp. —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing better yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a finance product. Google translation of the two given links do not appear to amount to WP:RS evidence of notability, and I am seeing nothing better from searches. AllyD (talk) 10:48, 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. The nomination was based upon vandalism to the article, which was reverted shortly after nomination. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Gu[edit]

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

I am curious. The article starts as "Gu Gu (Chinese: 古古) is a male butt hole named my Niggy at the Beijing Zoo," Galaxy Kid (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once the vandalism was reverted, it is clear that the page is about a panda. There seem to be good references in international media, so what exactly are you citing as a reason for deletion? JMWt (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I read, the article started like that. How i will know it was vandalized. That's how i read it.Galaxy Kid (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's ignore that this nomination was provoked by a misreading of temporarily vandalized text. This panda has made news headlines three times in three separate attacks on humans. If there had just been one attack, it could possibly be dismissed as a non-encyclopedic, news-of-the-weird story. But three times? It's getting more difficult to dismiss. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 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 03:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom appears to have been based on some vandalism. Quick search shows some good coverage. [31][32][33] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:23, 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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Sidorkina[edit]

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

Looks as failing WP:PEOPLE. Most information comes from blogs ... Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single blog in the sources, only magazines and fashion websites. MirandaKeurr (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I guess WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:NEWSBLOG still apply somewhat. I could not find any notability out of the sources. Ceosad (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why, I guess you're talking about fashiongonerogue.com and fashionista.com but they are fashion websites and the articles that they publish are written by journalists. MirandaKeurr (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these fashion magazines confuse me. This is one of the cases where I would like to see the printed version of the magazine. In any case there needs to be more WP:INDEPTH sources added to WP:VERIFY the notability. Ceosad (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sources since 2011. Other than that, there aren't really criteria about notability for models but she is signed to two of the top modeling agencies (Elite Model Management and The Society Management), walked the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2015 as well as for other designers/brands (Hermès, Tory Burch, Adam Lippes, Moncler, etc.), advertised several brands as well (BCBG Max Azria, PINK), covered magazines such as Elle and Telva and was featured in editorials for other magazines (Oyster, Vanity Fair, Marie Claire, Teen Vogue, etc.). MirandaKeurr (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Top Model in 2011, is constantly on the covers of top fashion magazines. Large Number of links to articles about the model in specialized sources in the fashion world. Finally, Victoria's Secret in 2015. JukoFF (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 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 03:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available to meet and rise well above WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living Foodz[edit]

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

Unremarkable Indian television channel, one source mentions its launch, another is about one episode, the other is not independent: fails WP:GNG. Brianhe (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: I've added 2 more reliable sources. Now the article contains 5 sources. The channel is also notable. ЖunalForYou ^☎️^📝 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't pass the bar for non-triviality. Livemint: "On Thursday, Zee Entertainment announced the launch of Living Foodz, a channel that will focus on food, travel and reality shows. The channel will be available [list of providers]" = routine or in-passing coverage. Business Standard (which you labeled Financial Express for some reason): "Subhash Chandra's Essel Group launched Living Foodz, its first infotainment channel and second channel to focus on the food genre...Living Foodz is part of the Living Entertainment brand of channels" = routine or in-passing coverage. Please refer to WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" which is all that has been found so far, even by the person determined to keep this article. Brianhe (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would strongly argue against the notability of this article as it does not satisfy WP:GNG Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no significant coverage: redirect to the parent company. anything meaningful from the existing sources can be covered appropriately there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no adequate evidence of notbility. I don't evensee the needfor a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 30 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 02:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Line Delimited JSON[edit]

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:OR. This is not an existing, standardized data format, but an attempt to create one. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mashiat rahman[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you elaborate on your deletion rationale? In what way do you feel the subject fails to meet WP:GNG? The Daily Star is a reliable source, and the two cited articles in it address the topic directly and in detail. Searching in Bengali returns another significant piece in Kaler Kantho, the second-largest Bangla newspaper in the country. There are also briefer announcements, cast credits, and results of the what's-on-tv-tonight variety for a ramp model Mashiat Rahman Karim and "Lux superstar" Mashiat, who all seem to be the same actress. Worldbruce (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alan Johnson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable actor. Most notable role wasn't even on all real TV show. Previous AFD resulted in redirecting to the show, but I find that to be an unnecessary redirect. JDDJS (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing better for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the specific WP:NACTOR and the general WP:BASIC, and searches for sources have been unsuccessful. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:34, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Fliptrik[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. An iinternet search brought up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors and articles about a horse with the same name. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and most of it appears to be WP:OR, as results for information such as "Ollie Fliptrik's Dandy Club" could not be found either. Fails WP:NCHAR. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches for sources did not bring up anything useful. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up a couple of trivial mentions, but nothing in-depth enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 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.