Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 November 23 November >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Odría Sotomayor[edit]

Enrique Odría Sotomayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am bringing this article to AfD in hopes of stopping the edit war on whether the article should be speedied under G11. (Being written from a neutral point of view, G11 clearly does not apply.) Subject is probably not notable and just misses being eligible for speedy deletion under A7. —teb728 t c 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTADVOCATE. This politician still a precandidate of a new movement in formation, not yet a political party. The sources indicate as "precandidate" [1] (November 6), [2] (November 12). The Peruvian Electoral Office doesn't have an official statement about this person (see second external link of the article). From July he's collecting signs for the legalization of his movement, but don't have any progress. Also, the Google Search finds few results, confirming lack of notability. Until yesterday his Twitter account announced him as precandidate, but the uncomfortable situation in Wikipedia yesterday, changed his status as "candidate" without confirmation of electoral authorities. Maybe someone close to the candidate, maybe himself, tries to promote his precandidature. --Taichi (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taichi is not even an English editor, he has made it his personal goal to delete this content. When you find many articles about a subject then it is found outside Wikipedia therefore valid. But just as stated before, it seems that autocracy is the dominating factor. WIKIPEDIA should be careful as a public organization that asks for public funds to have people with personal vendettas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.133 (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this article will be kept or deleted based on arguments about whether the subject is notable or not. Do you have anything to say about his notability? The closing admin will not be favorably impressed by your personal attack. —teb728 t c 11:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable under WP:POLITICIAN. It's simply too soon. clpo13(talk) 17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launching a new political party isn't an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, especially when the party doesn't even have an article about it yet. But nothing else here constitutes a substantive notability claim at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he actually wins election to a notable office. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Women and their Migrations to America[edit]

Latino Women and their Migrations to America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article that's written far more like an essay, or more accurately like the outline for an essay, than like a real encyclopedia article. An actual encyclopedia article about this topic might certainly be possible, which is why I'm not just speedying it outright, but it would have to be written and sourced much better, and titled differently, than this. Delete, or sandbox to allow creator further opportunity for improvement — but it is definitely not ready for prime time in this form. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, per WP:Original research and WP:Essay. By the looks of it, the page's creator is a student, or at least someone with an academic affiliation. A rewrite is definitely necessary though. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons stated in the article's talk page. ----MarkYabloko 10:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for several reasons ... ((1)) after a review of available sources and coverage, I consider the subject to be notable (to me, WP:DEL8 does not apply): (a) here is a book published by Duke University (b) here is a United Nations publication that has a lot of detail on immigration of Latino women vs men, (c) here is an article specifically on the subject of migration of Latino women; ((2)) based on the availability of sources mentioned, the article can develop such that it will not read as original research (yes, there are possible reliable sources, so to me, WP:DEL6 does not apply). The nomination reason is unsourced, but this is not one of the fourteen reasons for deletion. Instead the deletion policy (reason #6) focuses on the impossibility of reliable sources for attribution; ((3)) this subject may seem obscure to most editors/contributors, but let's remember WP:NOTPAPER and realize that there is room in WP for articles that are tightly focused, they simply must be notable, as I consider this subject to be after my review of this nomination. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Well-sourced material on this topic should be added to Hispanic and Latino Americans. If and when the amount of material there outgrows the main article, then there might be a rationale for splitting it off into a separate article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 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. North America1000 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyichukwu Chijioke Diru[edit]

Ifeanyichukwu Chijioke Diru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:18, 22 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) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Merely belonging to nobility does not mean automatic inherent notability. Otherwise we would have hundreds of articles for Saudi princes and princesses. Ceosad (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article barely suggests notability, name badly fails Google test. LjL (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like a scam or hoax. This article [3] confirm it. Even mentioned nobility is questioned. No verified sources exist at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with previous comments. FallingGravity (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 00:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Durso[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rodney Durso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notabiity: fails WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 16:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 16:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt Sources are non-existent. Can't see how he is notable. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. Delete and Salt.}} scope_creep 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - There are some sources, such as this in-depth article and these [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. - MrX 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment I think he probably is an artist, and worth of inclusion if he is going to that length to get his work and other folks work on scaffolding. He is clearly driven. Make mine a Keep scope_creep 14:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well he is clearly not notable as an artist, he fails WP:ARTIST by a mile. He's yet another snecking entrepreneur in the publicity trade, and the only possiblity of notability rests on the company. Twelve shows does not seem very many too me; in any case that would mean moving the article. The man himself seems very ordinary indeed, and the article is puffery.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, I had a better read of the sources this afternoon. I don't think it warrants a keep. I just my vote back to delete and salt. scope_creep 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Barely enough to satisfy my doubts about depth of coverage. Ceosad (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Does not meet WP:ARTIST, but it could be very close. Current article should be edited to include sources found by Mr Delta13C (talk) 21:19, 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. Consensus is for article retention. North America1000 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Sheffield[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Simone Sheffield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Again, this is questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and there's simply no signs of obvious improvement. It's also worth noting two accounts with "SimoneSheffield222" and "SimoneSheffield2222" have considerably interacted with this article. Pinging MichaelQSchmidt, Eusebeus, Crowsnest, Krano, S Marshall, Dan Murphy and Louisprandtl. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INDAFD: "Simone Sheffield"
  • Keep... again. Just as I did in 2009, I took what was nominated and gave it some regular editing attention. The COI contributor has been notified of our concerns and has not touched the article for over two years. An while Erik's concern about limited background info is a concern, background is not always notability and for non-contentious non-notability information we can use what Sheffield says about herself. As was spoken of in 2009, a quick search on Google News shows there are many reliable sources for verifibility of assertions, including the New York Times, Times, BBC News, Times of India, etc. More, according to WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", and in understanding that the wished-for WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline, we do have many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements in a more-than-trivial fashion. And, as reflected in the article new bluelinks, she has (co)produced several notable film projects, satisfying WP:CREATIVE even in the lack of the wished for WP:SIGCOV. She does meet WP:BASIC and that kind of sits above the other SNGs in the notability pecking order I should think, specially as one does not over-rule or supplant the other... they work together, not separately. Perhaps Crowsnest might use some of these to assist in further article improvements? Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:21, 6 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 15:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale. clpo13(talk) 00:00, 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. There are valid arguments for deletion as well as inclusion. However, there is no clear consensus to support either. The article can always be renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skene! Records[edit]

Skene! Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable article with my searches finding nothing better than this and there aren't even any signs confirming this label still exists and lastly this article has existed the same since starting in February 2007 (hardly changed much since then too). Pinging interested users Michig, Walter Görlitz and Chubbles. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you comment at these articles as is the case with Michig so I thought I would give you an early ping. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The label is defunct, but that's ultimately immaterial to its notability. I think this label manages to meet the closest thing we have to a relevant guideline for record labels, which is the part in WP:MUSIC about what constitutes "one of the more important indie labels" - that it is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." Skene released records from Green Day, Shades Apart, Lifter Puller, Trenchmouth, Jawbreaker, Actionslacks, and Crimpshrine, all of which are independently notable and most of which had lasting impacts on the 1990s alternative and punk scenes. There's some fluff and stories which ought to be excised from the article, but the basic skeleton - the factual information about its founding and location, and its roster of artists - is readily verifiable. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, where is the better improvement including the better sourcing, Chubbles? SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I have spent enough time cleaning up articles to save them; please don't presume that I will continue to volunteer my time in this way. Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Berliner Gramophone no longer exists either, but it is notable. Skene is important to the history of Green Day, and released records by several other notable bands. This can be confirmed by a cursory Google Books search. As such it is "one of the more important indie labels" under NMUSIC #5. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It helps to do more open searches, e.g. like Skene Records Minneapolis or Skene "Jeff Spiegel", and I have added what I could find: it's all passing mention. The comparison with another defunct label, Berliner Gramophone, whose notability has not been questioned is a WP:WAX argument. Both Keep votes assumably quote WP:MUSICBIO #5, but that criteria is for musicians and ensembles, not record labels; they fall under WP:CORP, and this one fails. Sam Sailor Talk! 05:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised this argument keeps cropping up every once in a while. As I have long argued, it is inappropriate to judge labels according to business criteria; musicological and pop-cultural subject experts ought to decide their notability. Bands are businesses, too, but we do not judge them according to WP:CORP. Chubbles (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Empty Assertion of notability: "what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article." Please add them. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The label has a proven impact upon musical culture by developing and distributing art, as proven by the multiple notable groups. The label existed pre-internet, or at best just to the very earliest days of the WWW. As such sources are likely offline, but are aslo likely to exist. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: I have added sources and find that subject is not notable. WP:PAPERONLY is a possibility, but until any of the Keep !voters add them, claims like "proven impact upon musical culture" is based purely on a WP:MUST assumption, and that's just not good enough per WP:V. - Sam Sailor Talk! 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is in and by itself not an argument for keep. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:59, 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 18:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:03, 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. Non notable per consensus  Philg88 ♦talk 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Vaghjai Devi Pune[edit]

Shri Vaghjai Devi Pune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BEFORE, nothing at Google News or Books. No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. No references. PROD was removed without explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We do not know anything about it except that there is a photo of it at the Commons. Ceosad (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Googling alternative spellings (Waghjai, etc.) confirms the temple's existence, but no evidence or suggestion of notability. No way to improve the article without published sources saying something about it. AtticusX (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AtticusX, thanks for checking alternative spellings. I wouldn't have known how to do that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also checked Shree Waghjai Devi Pune, which turns up a little bit more info but nothing beyond location information. Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 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 Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gofer[edit]

Gofer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads mostly like a dictionary definition, with a bunch of random trivia added on the end (including various TV shows that happen to have included the term). In 10 years, this is all we have managed to come up with; it suggests to me that this article could never pass WP:GNG. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, without prejudice to a future deletion proposal that can only be timely once there is evidence that a adequately focused improvement effort has been made (-- A decade is but a blink of the Wikipedic eye --IMVisionaryO-- , since WP is the (per Asimov, eventually-to-be-long-forgotten?) seed of the Encyclopedia Galactica. --) to discard any truly unhelpful material, find reliable sources, and seek help from experts on e.g. workforce structure who can tell us what formal job titles are likely or unlikely to "hide" the gofers behind them, and what degree of advancement such positions are likely to offer. (Should we believe The Devil Wears Prada is realistic? Is Tess in Working Girl a species of Gofer, and if so, can we document how much reality the film reflects? Does 9 to 5 reflect employees of low status actually being less dispensable than the bosses? Can we establish a list of captains of industry who "started out in the mail room"?) IMO, deletion would be grossly premature at this poingt; the next step should include efforts both to improve what is here and to identify on the talk page what is extraneous and why. The apparent informality of the job description is an unusual barrier to easy research, and that means the article should be presumed well worth the extra effort it may take to do it right, until enuf has been done right to demonstrate deletion-worthiness. A fair chance at improvement can exist only after the underbrush has been cleared away to expose fertile ground.
    --Jerzy•t 08:40 & :47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a widely used term but without a blue-link the meaning may be unclear to some people (or dismissed as a typo), the article has over 3000 reads in the last 30 days, so it is serving some purpose. It also has somewhere between 50 and 100 incoming links from the article space, so there is plenty of ammo to improve the article in "What links here". IMHO This is a simple refimprove and quite possibly WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I see no reason to delete this. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Courier. I would have said redirect to Errand boy as it's essentially the same thing, and we don't need two articles on the same thing, but since errand boy redirects there, so should this. --Michig (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be just a dictionary definition, followed by some disconnected trivia about the word defined. SJK (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to courier. It's a valid search term, and maybe could be an article some day, but for now a redirect makes the most sense. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known phenomenon., and merits an articles. There should be a wide range of additional sources. The meaning is not quite the same as " courier". DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 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 Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRA[edit]

OpenRA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not display notability as provided by secondary reliable sources. (Take a look at [10]--all trivial mentions by sources or blog comments.) Izno (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An engine for remaking old games. Most of these should really belong on the article of the game they are trying to replicate. FreeCol is another one of these, and those people who wrote it did not even bother trying to provide references. Too bad that there is no software notability guideline in existence. Clones are rarely notable on their own. Ceosad (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some links to secondary source:

IJK_Principle (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Actually, Kotaku and TotalBiscuit have made me somewhat reconsider this. Ceosad (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

IJK_Principle (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, both articles are by the same guy and with same text. Even though it doesn't seem both websites are owned by the same company. IJK_Principle (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as News and browser found some links but nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A custom VG/RS Google Search returned me the typical Metacritic page, but there are no critic reviews or even user reviews. Other things I found are a Blue's News page, a foreign-language page about a mod for the game and the rest are just brief mentions. --TL22 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As there are no extensive reviews beyond TotalBiscuit's video, I have to keep my vote for deletion. Ceosad (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as teetering on the edge of passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. MacWorld looks good, but it's by the same author (Mike Williams) that a bunch of other articles on OpenRA are. Kotaku looks okay, though its focus is 50/50 on Tiberian Sun itself and the engine. Unsure how we treat TB reviews for RS purposes, but it's an okay supplement since he has credentials. BetaNews is not in-depth, I wouldn't call it a reliable source, and I can't find author's (Mike Williams) credentials. Gry is not in-depth, but okay otherwise. Softpedia is a download site and so interested in reviewing what they host -- I would class this as not really independent or reliable. DownloadCrew is a copy-paste from MacWorld, definitely unreliable. The rest are passing mentions. Overall, it feels WP:TOOSOON, but I expect major outlets will cover it at some point when it gets its 5 minute spotlight. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was effectively unsourced. I had to rewrite it. Digged a bit to find some quality sources even though that is not easy on the topic of game engine recreations. Matthias M. (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid those aren't quality sources. The couple the are reliable, are extremely short mentions. The others are either not independent or are not reliable (such as WP:VG/RS). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to apply the guidelines for video games on this. This is effectively a free software project. Compare it to OpenTTD, Stratagus or Spring Engine instead. Matthias M. (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Classic AFD error there per WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added academic sources and software metrics. Being featured on GitHub Showcase, the Mono project and Microsoft Developer Network should prove notability. The SEO optimized articles you found via your search engine are mostly download page click bait. The independent LWN.net and Phoronix are really valuable sources. I left Rock Paper Shotgun and Kotaku in for reference although they are very light-hearted and superficial. Matthias M. (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For GNG purposes: Delft and thesis are not independent -- they contributed to the project. Softpedia is a software hosting site that hosts the engine, they are not impartial and thus not reliable. LWN is "reader-supported", the author in question is not on staff [11][12]. Phoronix looks semi-okay, but it non in-depth and the owner is the editor, which makes for no editorial oversight. MSDN is a blog entry and not reliable. Mono is just a list entry. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:54, 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.

Note: The page was moved to http://content.gpwiki.org/OpenRA wikia:opensource:OpenRA instead. Matthias M. (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to English rugby union system#History until such time as merge is done or notability requirements change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute Somerset 3 South[edit]

Tribute Somerset 3 South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability and the levels at English rugby union system but do not feel meet they notability requirements for Rugby competition articles (or WP:GNG — Rod talk 10:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet the notability requirement:[reply]

Tribute Somerset 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tribute Somerset 2 North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tribute Somerset 2 South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tribute Somerset 3 North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I would ideally like to keep this (and related pages) for the reasons being that there needs to be some sort of reference and coverage of lower league rugby union which is not covered anywhere else. I agree that the Somerset league is not the most notable leagues in the rugby union system but then again there are plenty of wikipedia sports pages which are not particularly notable. What worries me most is that the rugby union notability rulings (laws in rugby union) are extremely limited - apparently if a league is not a top league then it is not notable. Considering the English league alone has dozens of divisions below the Premiership then all these pages would fail on notability. I would be worried that if the Somerset divisions go then all the divisions would swiftly follow (this has happed previously in other subjects like a chain of dominoes). What this page (and other pages need) may be more varied references as opposed to deletion. Perhaps another alternative is to group the Somerset league divisions into one page. If you look at the football pages they are extremely thorough and well documented - let's try and keep rugby union to the same standard. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I very much agree with Jgjsmith006. There is an argument for grouping the lower Somerset league divisions (and the Beds, Herts & Oxon divisions below the Berks/Bucks & Oxon Championship) into one page on the grounds that these two sets of county leagues almost exclusively contain reserve teams but apart from that ALL of the rugby union leagues should be kept. Rillington (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks both for your comments. I noticed you were the primary authors which is why I informed you of the discussion. I based this nomination on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability which says for competitions:
A rugby union competition is deemed notable if:
  1. it is the top national club league competition of any nation,
  2. it is the top national club cup competition of any nation, or
  3. the competing clubs are wholly or mostly members of the top national club league competition.
Do you think any of these apply to these leagues? It would also be useful to make the case to keep the articles about these competitions in terms of the expectations at WP:GNG which suggests that they should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".— Rod talk 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guidelines are far too narrow and need rewriting. If such strict guidelines were followed on other subjects we would be having thousands of discussions, like this, on Wikipedia.Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you say, those guidelines are far too narrow. English rugby union has an established league structure of five levels of national competition with a network of regional and local leagues which feed into the national leagues. Therefore all of the local leagues which form part of this national network are notable and should have separate articles. This is the accepted notability criteria for English football and this same criteria should also apply to English rugby union. Rillington (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 100% agree with this. Going by the guidelines there would be no pages below Premiership level despite the fact that there are notable teams in the Championship (2nd division) who have had Premiership experience (Bedford Blues, Bristol, London Scottish, London Welsh, Rotherham Titans, Yorkshire Carnegie) as well as other teams in both the Championship and divisions below who have won national cup competitions in the past (Moseley, Coventry) or famous local clubs who have hosted international teams such as New Zealand in the past (Redruth, Camborne etc). The guidelines have a closed minded mentality which is similar to that of Premiership clubs who very recently wanted to shut that division out to lower league teams - a move hugely unpopular with both clubs and fans and thankfully has been thrown out (though they may well try again). Anyway back to the point in hand, I would argue that any league competition in the English league system that is run by the RFU is notable as it is theoretically possible that a team from a regional division such as Somerset could be promoted all the way up to the Premiership as it now stands and in the case for teams like Jersey who have gone all the way up through the divisions to the Championship. In the case of Somerset if you remove pages regarding to that league then there is no reference points to fans from that region other than information relating to big teams such as Bath. I feel that people from Somerset (and other regions) may not even know they have a local team until they go to their town page (on wikipedia) and see a rugby team under the sports section and can then click on that link for the club. People may argue that a team (or league) is too small to be notable, but we may as well argue that town pages are not notable as well and nominate them for deletion (and so on and so on). Jgjsmith006 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best Merge, including the others listed by the nominator. It clearly doesn't meet any current guidelines, or the spirit of GNG. To be fair I think that more of an effort could have been made to get wider consensus when the competition guidelines were suggested at WP:RU/N, but that is the place to be having that discussion, not here. Where one draws the line I don't know, but it certainly isn't level 11. Many other arguments made above in favour of keeping this article are fallacious; notability is generally accepted as not being inheritable WP:INHERITED; likewise WP:OTHERSTUFF in relation to the comments about soccer; and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL deals with the argument that a team 'might' make it to the championships. Derek Andrews (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is notable but sources should be improved Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Block evasion - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the points raised by User:Derek Andrews and the nominator. The leagues do not pass WP:GNG as they have not had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a summary of the leagues, their place in the ladder, and a brief mention of recent promotions/relegations. The matches certainly get plenty of mentions in the local paper, though that said, plenty of things get a mention in the local paper that I wouldn't put on Wikipedia. Essentially, I think one article covering all of these leagues would be suitable, but I'm not going to be the one to put the work in to demonstrate notability and merge them all together, so I won't shed too big a tear if they get deleted. Harrias talk 10:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge into a summary per Harrias, with no prejudice against a review being conducted after an RFC is run on the rugby notability policy to assess whether lower tier leagues are notable or not. Blackmane (talk) 05:12, 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 Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Emmanuel[edit]

Anu Emmanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article didn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Also her Film 'Action Hero Biju' is not yet released, its on the post-production process. So i need some editors suggestions whether it should be encyclopedic on Wikipedia or not. Josu4u (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Meet Anu Emmanuel, the prettiest Nivin Pauly fan". ManoramaOnline.
  2. ^ "Is Anu Emmanuel heroine of Nivin Pauly's 'Action Hero Biju'?". International Business Times, India Edition. 16 September 2015.
  3. ^ "Anu Emmanuel is Nivin's heroine in `Action Hero Biju`". Sify.
  4. ^ "Anu Emmanuel back after study break, to be Nivin's pair". Deccan Chronicle.
People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable and they need not meet any other criteria. Although I've not check if the depth of coverage in the sources provided are substantial. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The support given is no more than trivial. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation of the sources provided by NA1000 is needed. sst✈discuss 01:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈discuss 01:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in Malayala Manorama provides substantial coverage of the subject. The coverage in International Business Times, Sify, and Deccan Chronicle, when combined, provides several paragraphs of coverage about the subject. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

    Cunard (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - An actor who has been active for less than five years almost always fails standards for notability. Ceosad (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Ivanhoe[edit]

Robert J. Ivanhoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 (biographies) requirement. The sources in this article fail BIO badly; the only in-depth source is a YouTube interview, all other sources are either mention in passing, niche trade journals (which have trouble with neutrality, and are not "mainstream coverage"), or clearly COI sources tied to the subject or businesses/organizations he is involved in. I reviewed argument at Talk:Robert J. Ivanhoe and I am not impressed; let me shot it down pre-emptively before it re-appears here: "He consistently makes the power 100 list of real estate businesspeople in New York." - so what? WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument, and being in the Top 100 of biggest random-type-of-profession-listing in a city, even in the Big Apple, is not a criteria of notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Power 100 things are single paragraph deals that I can't consider significant coverage. Several Non-RS and minor mentions. Not seeing significant coverage by third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ivanhoe has arranged some of the largest real estate transactions in the country, the "youtube" interview is with the City University of New York and not just some posting, Ivanhoe is one of the go-to guys that the industry listens to get the pulse of NY real estate, the firm he grew is one of the largest real estate practices in the US, and I am not sure why industry newspapers and journals are not considered reliable sources for information. The Crain's article strongly supports notability as does the CUNY interview.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, being the "go to guy" isn't what makes someone notable. Arranging big deals doesn't either. The deal itself could even become notable, but that doesn't grant an individual notability. Is an interview with a college coverage? That's part of the debate I guess. I'll be honest, I strongly suspect paid editing is in play here. Paid editing, in and of itself, isn't necessarily wrong, but it isn't a bad idea to disclose if you are doing that. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made over 20,000 edits to 3,725 unique pages which I don't think is a profile of a paid editor; also why would I add "Appeals Court Stays Malpractice Suit Against Greenberg Traurig" or spend an hour fixing broken citations on the entry for stoning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&action=history I just enjoy editing profiles and when I stumble across a nice news article or someone interesting I see if there is a page and if not I create it or add the article. This guy seemed to be notable enough (especially compared to all the porn stars and football players that have pages :-) so I figured it would not be a problem. I just enjoy the lay of the land in New York real estate and as I build profiles and such, I link them to other pages. Generally I am more interested in how they got their start in life but I clean up their career, add philanthropic efforts for balance, and family details for balance. Lawyers are a little harder to get info since their accomplishments are all tied up indirectly in transactions or in primary sources; and often NY people can get lost amongst the giants. The City University of New York is a serious institution with 500,000 students as is its programming. there is not much more I can add other than a bunch of articles by the New York Times and such which ask him to comment for a paragraph or so. People need to search his name w/out the middle initial as well though.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of edits doesn't tell me anything. Paid editors also edit as a hobby on things that interest them. And do you honestly think I didn't bother to look before I mentioned it? Nobody has said CUNY isn't serious and the number of students they have is irrelevant. The point you are missing is that those videos aren't really about him. In the ones I looked at they're mostly asking for his POV. I'm sure his POV is valuable, but that's not what matters. The standard is to be the subject of significant coverage, not a participant. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After "over 20,000 edits to 3,725 unique pages", I'd think you'd know how to properly cite a specific video instead of just a page that lists every video he's been appeared in. That would simplify things. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I made a mistake when I shifted the direct link to the you tube page for the same video on the CUNY TV page since I was concerned that referring it as a "you tube video" implied that it was posted by some run-of-the-mill person. I meant to put the CUNY page with the list of videos down in further references. We all make mistakes.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is about him (and it seems it is), I don't think 30 minute documentary that received no critical coverage and does not seem to have been aired much is a source that gives someone notability. Bottom line is that CUNY TV is a university online/cable TV broadcaster ([13]), which I'd classify as local. Just as if he got an article about him in the CUNY newsletter or university paper, I wouldn't think it's sufficient to make him encyclopedic. To be notable, one needs coverage in non-local sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reference in the guidelines regarding notability that reference any distinction between local and non-local sources. So if I want to write an article about a mayor of a suburb in Chicago, I would need a non-local source, say in Ohio, to justify it? Patapsco913 (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that local coverage is not valid. That's not what Piotr is saying. It gives the appearance that it was made for "local use", ie, for the school. If a CUNY professor writes a textbook and it gets used at CUNY, it may be a very good textbook, but that doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I just search his name and I get a bunch of references in publications like the New York Times. To me the fact that a number of articles mention him as one of the top real estate lawyers in New York City, that he has presided over some of the largest real estate transactions in the city, that he is frequently asked to comment on the industry by the New York Times, that there is a detailed interview by the City University of New York who clearly thinks he is important in the industry, and that he built up one of the largest real estate practices in the country (see the Crain's New York article: "Robert Ivanhoe has helped build Greenberg Traurig into one of the city's biggest and most active real estate groups"), seems to make him notable. Even if a BLP were to require a non-local source, do you not think that CUNY TV is at least a regional influence? We are talking about a city of 9,000,000 and a metropolitan area of 20,000,000.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are mentions in passing that don't qualify as in-depth coverage. Outside the CUNY TV documentary, there is nothing here, and I think we will need other editors' views on that particular source. Perhaps it is regional, and you are right I don't see anything in BIO that explicitly forbids it; however video sources are, in my experience, not seen as very reliable (but you can also ask at WP:RSN). I'll ping User:Niteshift36 who commented here already re his take on this particular source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point: that he is seen as an expert who the New York Times asks for commentary on the industry. They are not usable in the biography but show that the New York Times thinks he is relevant. I could add more but I figured that was sufficient. If we require a non-local source for all BLPs, we are going to have to delete a lot of biographies. I am was just browsing through mayors and politicians in the USA and a lot of them rely on either local papers or the local chamber of commerce for their only source. I really cannot see how that is Wikipedia policy given the sheer number of purely locally sourced articles out there. If I wanted to write about a locally businessman who was running for alderman in Chicago, I doubt I would find a non-local source; however, he would still be notable.Patapsco913 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you misunderstand the use of the word local and second, as Piotr correctly points out, passing mentions mean nothing in terms of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how you would define it. Anyhow CUNY Tv is "The largest university television station in the country" and serves "7.3 million broadcast households in the New York metro area" and "CUNY TV is the recipient of 14 New York Emmy® Awards, and other prestigious industry honors including the Telly Award and Communicator Awards, and a total of 56 Emmy nominations" http://www.cuny.tv/about.phpPatapsco913 (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to mayors, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. In their case, it is assumed that position of non-local cities is sufficient, through of course it can become heated for the borderline bios. And thus I am far from certain that your alderman in Chicago would survive an AfD. Anyway, there is no consensus on anything for business people except what is written in "Business_people_and_executives" section there, and that does not cover the current situation. There are plenty of AfDs where people show passing coverage, and argue that the subject is an expert cited in sources and thus should be kept, but in my experience this argument has not been commonly supported. Which means that you have to show how the subject meets WP:BIO, and again, it seems we have only one possible good source, the CUNY TV regional/local documentary. We need more opinions on it; I again would recommend you ask about the source at WP:RSN for extra input. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Videos are usable if the source is credible; hence one could use a video conducted by ABC News to note a statement by a person. That is exactly what I am doing here. I do not see how a program run by a university and shown on Public television is not reliable. http://thestolerreport.com/ Michael Stoler has a very good reputation and that is why all the biggest names in the industry are willing to be interviewed by him. If you go to the you tube channel you can see all the other people he interviews. As far as notability, there are three or four articles stating that he is one of the top real estate attorneys out there, there is the CUNY TV interview for his background (with Crain's New York Business and the Real Deal article for support), and then are a bunch of articles referencing some of his largest transactions. I have also shown that the New York Times recognizes him as an expert in his field. He has received numerous awards and recognitions. He sits on a number of boards. To me that sees sufficient to pass notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 08:09, 5 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! 06:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources seem to be basically mere mentions, so consensus is usually that we delete in such situations. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all found links but unlike the currently sourced article, there's nothing but passing mentions so there's nothing to suggest a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 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 speedy delete. WP:G5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex9777777 NeilN talk to me 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lovifm.com ( Radio )[edit]

Lovifm.com ( Radio ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable radio provider. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. See also WP:BCAST. clpo13(talk) 20:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:31, 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. Thanks to Cordless Larry and Checkingfax for adding sources. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because this article has no references or sources, there is no evidence of organizational notability. If multiple independent reliable sources can be added, this article may qualify to be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 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. sufficient consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Kishor Joshi[edit]

Hari Kishor Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious clains of notability, Google search turned up almost nothing about this person that wasn't promotional (e. g. Facebook etc.). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy of this version was declined (other versions with various capitalizations were A7'd). Going though this discussion process ensures any re-creation can be speedy-deleted on-sight and repeated re-creations by the same editor will be considered evidence of disruptive behavior. In short, letting this go 7 days now means we won't have to revisit it ad-nausium in the future. That, and it is remotely possible that this person does meet WP:N but has managed to keep reliable, independent sources that can demontrate it off of Google's top-20 list. I did say "remote." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article originally contained a somewhat credible-appearing source but it related to a different person. Thparkth (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tagged it for speedy. But it was declined. Did not find any reference to prove that he is notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unacceptable and apparently unimprovable as this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - Completely acceptable and apparently improvable as this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.218.83 (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: As nominator, I would recommend that the closing admin look at the state of the article at the time it was nominated and at the time of closing. If there are enough newly-added reliable, independent sources to suggest more time is needed, I would recommend relisting or closing as "move to Draft:". Non the other hand, if the newly-added sources either lack independence, lack reliability, or do not support notability enough to suggest that this person might be notable, then delete it. Of course, if the newly-added sources which are reliable and independent clearly support a claim of notability even if the article text doesn't include all of the claims, then the page should be kept and cleaned up (it seems a bit npov right now). Also note that the article has been expanded and references have been added since I nominated it and since the "early" AfD participants gave their opinion. There is no telling if they (or I) would have the same opinion if they (or I) reviewed it right before you, the closing admin, began the closure process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources talk about him; they only back up his beliefs and the figure for whom he is named. Without sources, he's not all that notable. —LucasThoms 06:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the article has been so much expanded since nomination that it deserves further consideration. Those who have already !voted are invited to say whether the new material has changed theri views. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reaffirming nomination to delete article - I just did a cleanup and removed a lot of stuff that was not about the person. I also flagged some references as not backing up the claims and flagged one extraordinary claim as dubious. Because of that I added {{factual accuracy}} (diff). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter rubbish. --Michig (talk) 20:11, 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. Michig (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Tenray[edit]

Norman Tenray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional, comprising a miscellaneous listing of random events. I tried cleaning it up, but in my opinion it's hopeless. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I guess he is some kind of business speaker making that spawn of trivial references easily come into existence. Nowhere near the worst WP:SOAPBOX I have seen, but I have to agree for the arguments. Depth of coverage etc. also fail with him. Ceosad (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with all entirely as my searches found some links with Highbeam, News and browsers but certainly nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Has COI issues, article is full of PR fluff. Stuff like In April 2014 he hosted an event for the North & Western Chamber of Commerce where Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, Dr Ben Broadbent spoke about the state of the economy. is very unencyclopaedic and is only used to pad out what is effectively a pseudo-independent digital CV. Rayman60 (talk) 13:54, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OBAS Group[edit]

OBAS Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional, comprised of minor events, and the firm's own praise of itself. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches found nothing more than trivial mentions and there was certainly time for the article to have become better. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity page for non-notable company. Poor article, multiple issues. Rayman60 (talk) 13:45, 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 Redirect to K3 (band) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne Verbruggen[edit]

Hanne Verbruggen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSICBIO; most material I found online is Dutch yet there is no be-wiki article. I don't think there's a case for GNG here. This is one of three articles created by an apparent fan-account. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She fails notability. Logicequalslogical (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has become a member of one of the most popular music groups in the Benelux. She was chosen in a televised contest that was watched by millions. She has committed herself to stay in the group for several years. If this article is deleted, it will be recreated within a short while and we will be here in an AFD-discussion again. So keeping the article will be the easiest way to let it grow into a decent article. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff5102 For this to actually be acceptable, she needs to have considerable coverage to suggest solid independent notability as per musicians notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 09:12, 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 Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Dandurand[edit]

Yvon Dandurand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a run of the mill Univ Prof, except for being part of a panel that discussed the She Has a Name play, which is likely why Neelix created the whole article. Basically a coatrack for the play he promoted all over the site Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article details a collection of minor accomplishments none of which add up to notability for me. He was a university administrator for ten years [14] but not at a high enough level (such as university president) to justify notability that way, and is apparently still an associate professor [15], also not a high enough level to justify notability from the job title. So we're left with looking to other measures like research impact (WP:PROF#C1) but again I don't see enough to convince me in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 21 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 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not done anything inherently notable, and he is not notable. Ceosad (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of sources here. Is on national radio as an expert here. His research gets much attention here, and he has been described as an "an international expert on human smuggling" by Canadian news source The Globe and Mail here. Meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:12, 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 redirect to List of The Smurfs episodes#Season 5 (1985). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Smurflings (film)[edit]

The Smurflings (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncertain notability / genuine? Oscarthecat (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 22 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 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as proposed by Nate - Ceosad (talk) 21:33, 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 redirect to K3 (band).  Philg88 ♦talk 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marthe De Pillecyn[edit]

Marthe De Pillecyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The common outcomes (listed on WP:MusicOutcomesWP:MUSICOUTCOMES) states that band members, unless they're spectacular in achievements) do not deserve their own article. This may not even pass WP:GNG. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see enough coverage for there to be an article for K3, the referenced group. If the group is not notable, I don't think a member is either. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:46, 22 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 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot see any sane reason to have all the band members on their own articles. Too little to merge into the main article, so lets just delete it. Ceosad (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly not independently notable and I found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K3 (band). This seems the obvious outcome here. --Michig (talk) 20:20, 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 09:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emaze[edit]

Emaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This small company (10-15 employees) does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The references do not support a claim of notability - they are routine articles that seem like they were just copied from press releases (one is press release itself). There also appears to be an aggressive bit of crosswiki promotion going on - the main contributors to the article are single-purpose accounts and the page has been repeatedly deleted on other language projects (w:es:emaze and w:pt:emaze for example). Deli nk (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:39, 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! 19:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: looks like an advertisement and single-purpose accounts prove that this is soapboxing. Ceosad (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Universities and companies around the world use this service in multiple languages. Definitely has its place here. Gingimaster (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Gingimaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I see the claim of widespread use, but I see no evidence of it. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches only found some passing mentions, clearly not yet notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 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 delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Padda[edit]

Shan Padda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP article about a CEO who seems to have no references for article that has been on the go since mid 2008. Can't find any sources, or any verifiable info on why he is notable. Being given a tech entrepreneur prize does not denote notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep 11:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: An article by a one-day WP:SPA who created articles on the firm and its CEO. A Highbeam search turns up a couple of routine sector coverage pieces, but neither these nor the non-notable awards mentioned in the article seem substantial evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:37, 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 19:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and AllyD. Ceosad (talk) 21:37, 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. Per consensus  Philg88 ♦talk 06:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Plunkett[edit]

Arthur Plunkett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The main source used in the article appears to be a CV from a genealogy website, and is the only support for personal information in the article. A second source confirms only that Dorman Long & Co were contractors for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The third source only supports use of Radium bombs as treatment for cancerous growths. Other than the CV, which is a primary source, there is no support for the claim of his involvement in the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which seems the main "claim to fame". Internet and other searches find other Plunketts, but not this one, indicating that the subject fails to pass WP:GNG. AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete insufficient evidence to back claims in article. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I guess WP:1E would apply if those claims are true, and the bridge is more notable of these two... Ceosad (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It appears from the article that he had only a minor role in designing the bridge, & there sems no other basis for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose as I unfortunately found nothing at all and that's not surprising but that also means there's no obvious better improvement. I will say change to disambiguation page afterwards for the other two but simply not include this perhaps (I'm willing to start the dab page myself). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bono[edit]

Christian Bono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to fail WP:ANYBIO thanks in part to all of the "Citations" failing WP:RS Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 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 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Serious issues. Fails notability, very nonsensical - doesn't flow, littered with errors. Perhaps written in good faith but it still seems like delete is the only option. Rayman60 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A very questionable biography. WP:BLP is being violated here too. Ceosad (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think he does not have the notability criteria.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:55, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oye! Times[edit]

Oye! Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure about notability. Claims to be a Canadian website Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Social network is no indication of notability. But still compared to the pages of reliable websites ( facebook likes and twitter followers of other reliable websites ). This website has got 18 facebook likes till date and 168 followers. Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a search in Google finds a massive spam attack, but nothing real. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 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 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It is a news website. Not ordinary but a reliable and collaborative. It doesn't have widespread coverage in US or Canada but does report worldwide news from the primary and reliable sources of that particular country. Arjann (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This news Website don't have notability. Eden's Apple (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the keep reason given above is simply ITEXISTS, which is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as searches only found their own articles, no considerably third-party coverage. Newspapers may be considered notable but there's simply no obvious improvement yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 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 delete. consensus is clear enough after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kumar (Advocate)[edit]

Prashant Kumar (Advocate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a fatal lack of spectacular coverage on this man; he appears to be just another lawyer. He is not mentioned NOR linked in any of the WIkipedia pages for the organizations he supposedly had an impact on. This page is mainly nominated for deletion via WP:ANYBIO. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  17:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Human3015. This is just a non-notable lawyer using Wikipedia as a platform to advertise himself. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 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. Michig (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vance Dickason[edit]

Vance Dickason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Simply being a technology journalist or having one trade association award does not make one notable, and the article appears self-promotional in nature. Rhombus (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another clearly too soon as there's no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient evidence that he is a particularly important authority in his field. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:GNG. No secondary reliable sources cover this person where an article is warranted. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 10:57, 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 -- GB fan 11:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loudspeaker_Design_Cookbook[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Loudspeaker_Design_Cookbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Migration from Latin America to Europe[edit]

Migration from Latin America to Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article mainly relies on primary sources, and seems to be a compilation of data that resembles original research. Furthermore, it lacks inline citations, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. It also contains a quite a few peacock phrases, making me wonder about WP:NPOV.

It is possible that a legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this article isn't it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if a topic is notable it's notable; there are entire books written about the subject.[16] Deletion is not cleanup. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of sources, including 23 inline citations at this writing. Needs cleanup, obviously. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 16 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, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the tags indicate, this article is problematic because of grammar issues and/or incomplete research. The subject is notable though and should be cleaned up. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not a pretty article, but cleanup is preferable to deletion, as has been stated by others in this thread. Article meets WP:GNG; to delete the article now wouldn't prevent someone from writing about it again in the future. Better that someone improves and adds on to the existing article rather than have someone build a new article from scratch. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:03, 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. Michig (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debtmerica Relief[edit]

Debtmerica Relief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company received routine listing in corp directories, "nth fastest growing" in 2009, and some local "best places to work" award; even the details of foundation and leadership are self-cited. Fails WP:CORP notability requirement. Brianhe (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously not currently notable with no better coverage. 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, —UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non notable--and the references, such as they are, seem to prove that by the low ranking on the various lists . No significant coerage. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, article spam. Creator seems to have made a few spammy articles over the years, some of which have been deleted, and made few edits otherwise. Probable COI. Citobun (talk) 13:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Afterburn[edit]

WWE Afterburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:47, 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 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aired for three seasons in syndication, WP:GNG is easily met. No true reason for deletion presented. Nate • (chatter) 17:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Bottom Line[edit]

WWE Bottom Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It aired on USA Network and in American syndication, and still airs internationally. A mediocre WWE clip show, but it's on the air; that's all it needs to meet WP:GNG for me. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It probably meets WP:TVSERIES requirements for notability, albeit barely.LM2000 (talk) 23:39, 16 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 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 21:17, 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. Potential future success is no guarantee of an article, but it doesn't appear to be a hoax and references have been improved. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhtesem Yüzyil: Kösem[edit]

Muhtesem Yüzyil: Kösem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, maybe hoax, probably without notablity guides. 333-blue 10:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a hoax though, quick google search shows that. I also linked six other Wikipedia articles on the subject in different languages. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a hoax. This TV series is a sequel to another TV series titled Muhteşem Yüzyıl, and as you can see it has an article on English Wikipedia. The show will start tonight in Turkey. The article needs to get expanded. That's all. Keivan.fTalk 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded it a little bit. I added links to other articles, new references, new categories, external links, etc. I think we can keep it. Keivan.fTalk 10:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion !! Seriously !!! Strong Oppose. I just watched the first episode. Anyway, this is one of the biggest productions and will be a great success just like its predecessor Muhteşem Yüzyıl. And as I can see, its on IMDB and links and sources were provided in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:38, 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 03:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is notable enough. We can keep it. Keivan.fTalk 18:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article can't be created based off of possible future success. Ladygagahouse (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The series has already become a subject of huge interest among the pro-Arab viewers around the world. A lot of Turkish news references have been easily found when I searched it on google. I strongly recommend to keep the article according to Wikipedia article guideline. Sharif uddin (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, it's already successful in the middle-east. Besides, a TV show or even a movie shouldn't always be successful to have an article in Wikipedia. We have thousands of articles about unsuccessful shows, movies, companies, brands, music groups, etc, here on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that they're not notable. Keivan.fTalk 09:06, 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 no consensus. North America1000 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on james[edit]

Come on james (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Internet meme, only local (Hong Kong) coverage. sst✈discuss 09:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because it is in Hong Kong does not mean it is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it is in Hong Kong does not mean it is automatically notable either. sst✈discuss 08:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I suggested it was. However, you suggested it received coverage in Hong Kong only which was apparently a grounds for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said "non-notable" as in failing GNG. sst✈discuss 09:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"only local (Hong Kong) coverage" AusLondonder (talk) 01:12, 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 03:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Local notability is still notability. However, some of the sources are of dubious quality (forum entries) so some pruning of the article will be needed. Deryck C. 13:11, 17 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, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The page is unnecessary to be deleted. Although it is not notable worldwide yet, its significance demonstrated on YouTube and in the city( it is now a very popular slang among Hong Kongers) prove that the article certainly worth existing.

Also, other pages related to culture or phenomenon only yet viral in Hong Kong are kept as well, such as the Bus Uncle page, the Kong Boys and Kong Girls, Hong Kong Cyclothon , Swimming shed and so on. The Come On, James article should be treated the same way. Besides, local notability is still notability.

And one of the main functions of Wikipedia is to get new knowledge, regardless of its popularity, known internationally. Or else, Wiki won't feature articles and news on its front page to spread the the knowledge to its readers. And the other name of Wiki is literally the Free Encyclopedia. A REAL encyclopedia contains every kind of knowledge, has no boundaries and does not cut out any kind of new knowledge that is not "notable" internationally yet. The Wikipedia should be the same.

Most importantly, the article is being testified to be included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong. If it's not for the representation of social, cultural phenomenon of the city from the article, it would not have been considered. Hence, there's genuinely no need for deletion of the article.

Terenceterenceterence1402 (talk) 14:03, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliterate[edit]

Elliterate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to have attracted the attention of media sources outside of his Montana home region (the Montana Kaimen, etc.). Refs to the Seattle Times do not actually mention the subject but rather projects he was involved with. I don't see evidence of broader public interest via independent reliable sources. KDS4444Talk 06:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should more sources be added from his work in California and Seattle? Wasn't sure how many sources needed but his resume boasts many notable collaborations/shows etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapthatgavelup (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the article needs is references that discus the subject of the article in depth and also have broad interest and circulation— major regional and national newspapers or similarly circulated magazines ("People", "Newsweek"). It isn't so much a question of where (geographically) these sources are located, but of who reads them (with large readership indicating a measure of notability) and of what they bother to say about him (a mention in passing is not as much an indicator as a personal interview). Links that lack independence from the subject such as the one to "Shaymlusly Elliterate Events" and the one to http://shaymlusly-elliterate.bandcamp.com do nothing to support a notability claim. The reference to the Seattle Public Theater does not link to anything that discusses him, so a reference like that doesn't help either. Neither does the Black Budget Music link. And these last two types of "references" (i.e., web pages) need to be places where the subject of the article is discussed, not places where his performances can be heard or where a track listing can be viewed or where his name is mentioned as performing in a certain night (all of which are considered trivial and most of which are likely to lack independence from the subject). Also not useful: press releases, album announcements, and anything that comes directly from the artist or those promoting him. The article needs multiple (at least two) references from reliable (i.e., well-known) independent sources which discuss the subject in depth. Lastly, please sign your entries with four tildes at the end to automatically produce your signature. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 07:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article looks acceptable at first but there's no simply no better coverage for better improvement. 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, —UY Scuti Talk 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking through the links doesn't convey a sense that the subject has achieved a significant following or industry awareness. Simply performing and making/releasing music by itself in not particularly noteworthy unless there is evidence of an impact of some sort via independent press coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have a low barrier to popular culture content and our readers come to us for the breadth we are able to present. This is a nicely done, well documented piece. Keep under GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrdom in Sikhism[edit]

Martyrdom in Sikhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At the present The entire article is an atrociuos mix of OR and SYNTH which looks like a POV essay, rather than an article of an encyclopedia. Furthermore (as far as I can see) the subject is not notable enough as I can only find 7-8 books which make passing mentions of this, nothing more. I think that in its present state(without a complete rewrite, which is akin to deletion ofc) the article is not wiki material. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The entire article is in the form of an essay and is certainly not per WP:NPOV. Even if it is considered that the article be re-written, the article is not per WP:Notability. It is an article based on core primary research and unless it is improved, it cannot be approved in such shape. Further, the article is very similar to this [17] and sikhiwiki.org may include article directly related to Sikhism, Wikipedia is vast and requires claims which can be verified at a larger and broader level. Pixarh (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons. Firstly the article isn't so bad that it can't be improved (and deletion is not cleanup). Secondly, the subject is clearly notable. Anyone who spends thirty seconds Googling the the phrase "Martyrdom in Sikhism" will quickly come to the conclusion that this is an important topic to Sikhs. See for example [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Thparkth (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am doing some basic cleanup on the article to remove some POV and make it less of an essay. Thparkth (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:40, 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 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. adequately sourced, and contains an appropriate list. Easily expandable. Does not seem like OR to me. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 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 Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Bolden[edit]

Edgar Bolden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL,and does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. Certainly reach of the Tuskegee Airmen deserved to be commemorated. But not necessarily in an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches turned up numerous books which reference this man, but upon closer examination, none provided more detail than his rank and other superficial military designations. I had hoped that a look at the pdf cited in the article would direct me to something more substantial, but the link seems to now be broken. Given the lack of substantial sourcing and the fact that much of the content on the page is, as DGG suggests, of personal memorial nature, rather than speaking to general notability, I'm afraid I must agree that WP:GNG is not satisfied. Snow let's rap 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Bolden was one of the first African American military pilots and upon searching, while some of the results (as said by Snow Rise) detail exclusively his name and/or rank, Bolden alone has had much coverage from sources from Portland to Virginia. MB298 (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the citations? Valfontis (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:SOLDIER, and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:21, 22 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, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've replaced the article's single reference pdf with an archive link--remember that most deadlinks aren't really dead. It's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080517183436/http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/uploads/EdgarBolden.pdf Valfontis (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per a newspaper article of September of this year, "All black military pilots who trained in the United States during World War II trained in Tuskegee. In all, almost a thousand black pilots trained there from 1941 to 1946. Of that number, 450 were deployed overseas and 150 lost their lives, including 66 killed in action. Of the roughly 450 who went overseas with the 332nd Fighter Group, about 32 are still alive, said Brian Smith, president of the Tuskegee Airmen National History Museum in Detroit." It appears that Mr. Bolden was one of the longer-lived Tuskegee Airmen, but that alone does not make him notable by Wikipedia standards. The group as a whole is notable, of course, but judging by the numbers cited in the news article, being one of 450 alone doesn't confer notability as notability is not inherited. I checked carefully for more sources including using his middle initial (I've added that to the "find sources" templates above) than the obituary cited in the article and could only find a few, including a reference to his being shot down (which isn't cited in the article, and one of several similar brief book mentions), and brief mentions: U.S. Rep mention, transcript of D.C. obit, Oregonian death notice, and obit, note about his death, plus a civil court matter and brief mention of his 2nd marriage in Jet magazine. He served with honor, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER (collective award to the Airmen of the Congressional Gold Medal, a civilian honor, isn't enough) or WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, substantive sources about him. Valfontis (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MB298 (talk) 22:13, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Seawall[edit]

Live at the Seawall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The album is an unofficial bootleg. Koala15 (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:55, 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 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Baker[edit]

Wally Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads, in its entirety:

Wally Mary McBride Baker (née Stiefel) (January 9, 1898 – April 8, 2009) was an American supercentenarian who was the oldest person ever from Delaware. She resided at Parkview Nursing home and Rehabilitation Center in Wilmington, Delaware. One of eight children, longevity runs in the Stiefel family. Her brother John lived to be 99, and sisters Emma and Anna lived to be 102 and 105, respectively.

Zero sources. EEng (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC) EEng (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oldest person in a state with less then a million people is not impressive. She was not even 1 in a million. Her life was so unremarkable that the most interesting thing in the links is she was born the year Pepsi was invented. Legacypac (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No more notable than a bygone lottery winner. NebY (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage seems routine and local and not of the ilk to satisfy WP:N in justifying a stand-alone page. Canadian Paul 18:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge When I looked into it, two of the sources, the delawareonline ones, were actually identical but had been listed twice in the archives. So in reality, there are two local type of sources that discuss her. While that would merit a scraping pass on notability, even calling it a stub would be generous. Blackmane (talk) 12:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain of Fire and Miracles[edit]

Mountain of Fire and Miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still, not very obvious to me. Links mostly talk about Football Club, belonging to organisation and I still can find any verifiable secondary sources, talking about ministry as a religious organisation. Appreciate, if you may point to some. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of them. See Sahara reporters, Vanguard News, Daily Sun, Premium Times, The Punch News, Vanguard News, Nigerian bulletin, [23] to mention few. This is obviously not a candidate for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Although the founder of this religious organization, D.K. Okukoya (his image shown) is yet to have an article, he most likely passes the notability criteria. The organization is also well known in Nigeria and its article which is under-sourced needs expansion as well. Eruditescholar (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if this can actually be improved. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously passes WP:GNG, there are several reliable sources discussing this subject.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not least for the warnings about this organisation written by Leo Igwe among others. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 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 obvious snow keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Brussels lockdown[edit]

2015 Brussels lockdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not independent of November 2015 Paris attacks and WP:NOT#NEWS (just a current status of a city). Scope too narrow, anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - Let's see how this goes for another week or so, then we can make a judgment on whether the article should stay or not. Something important can be gleaned from this situation. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL So, basically this isn't important (yet for an encyclopedia), and there's not (yet) much to be gleaned from it. Anything else is a different scope i.e. different article WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS, this subject would seem to be more suited to Wikinews - not every event in the news is encyclopedic in nature. Shearonink (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When CNN sends in Anderson Cooper to report live it goes beyond routine. Many raids and arrests. Whole city shut down for several days. Significant implications for how Europe reacts to terrorist threats. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's underlining this is big news, still NOTNEWS. The raids and arrests are outside the scope of this article. Caveat - this may at some point be independent of the actual topic, when there's long term closure but then it will be a different topic. Widefox; talk 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was joking. Sorry. Next time I introduce levity, I'll flag it with a clown face, or something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a serious issue, that Brussels has to lock down not only at the weekend. It is still going on. DanGong (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. European capital is under lockdown for third day. Imagine that in in Washington, if you doubt significance. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that in, say Brussels. It's still NEWS. It's a sentence in the topic November 2015 Paris attacks, and not independent of it. French state of emergency / the French borders being closed is also extraordinary not a separate topic or article, despite Schengen. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Brussels, Capital city of the European Union closed for business for the third day. A few hours of lockdown is one thing; this is astonishing. Notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A capital city of an EU country yes (not the capital city as the EU isn't a country and doesn't have a capital). Lots of NEWS is astonishing and not encyclopaedic, hence WP:10YT / WP:RECENTISM. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWe are beginning to see articles about what a lockdown means, [24], [25] articles, that is that begin to establish the impact. (Michel Houlebecq's agent has probably already submitted a book proposal: Brussels Lockdown.) As is usual, however, the existence of an AFD discourages editors from building the article. Which is where a SNOW KEEP becomes functional. Articles can be brought to AFD or proposed for a Merge later. But good articles are easier to create in real time, when a topic like this is the topic of intense interest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Immediatism works both ways: one person says that the article needs to be created right now at the peril of WP:TOOSOON. The other says that the article needs to be deleted right now - even though sources that confirm notability will be out before Houlebecq lights another one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article for what a lockdown is - Lockdown - and this (significant) one is covered in it. Widefox; talk 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not a reason to delete this article, provided that sources conceptualize it as a notable event, not merely as a part of a larger process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable, even though there hasn't been any attacks, a European captial is under lockdown. Quite a notable event. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not an independent topic from a topic that includes this scope. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that may make sense, let's give this a day or 2 and see how the coverage evolves. (see this [26]) While this is not wholly unique (Boston was locked down for some hours while the Boston Marathon bombers were sought, it has been three days and I'd like to see how the press frames it as Tuesday and Wednesday dawn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very keep. Something will come out of this. Then we can move it to that. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 09:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more sources are found in coming days. But I don't see any other instances of notable city lockdowns... epic genius (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's Close this Now There is no way this is getting deleted, so let's close the AfD and get on to building an article about this event. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how AfD works, closure is dependent on the weight of comments not by votes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and policy/guideline based arguments are stronger. Sources are easy - this is NEWS, it's very wikinews newsworthy and covered in e.g. https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Suspects_detained_in_Belgium_raids . I'm not against userfy if concerned about losing work. Widefox; talk 09:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you that you nom'd this when the event had just started and at that point maybe not as notable, but it has continued, and there is enough keeps this is not going to be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDEQ "while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one". I wouldn't like to guess the consensus. In 10 years time will this exist? It's a CRYSTAL at this point (and I might add it's WP:USEFUL recentism to cover it now, but whether it becomes just a reaction or another topic we will see). Widefox; talk 13:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple reliable sources (see coverage in BBC News) call an extended lockdown of an entire metropolitan area "unprecedented", and so did Belgian prime minister (The Guardian). --DarTar (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This historical event is notable and encyclopedic. JoJan (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's notability is not independent of the Paris topic. Widefox; talk 09:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there is a relation between the events, but there was a credible threat to Brussels and an unprecedented response, not just a hunt for the Paris attackers. Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the relation is a reaction to it. Then as others have said, any raid event would be a different topic (or the Belgium topic). The scope isn't broad enough to include raids, best handled elsewhere. The lockdown topic per se is best handled at Lockdown per WP:SPINOUT (thinking over the long-term). Widefox; talk 11:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium into this article. The lockdown is much more notable than the anti-terrorist operations in this case, and are certainly connected. I agree we don't need two articles in this case.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously a notable and historic event, and enough content to merit a separate article. (Brussels is notably also the de facto capital of the European Union, so this is a full military lockdown of the EU capital for several days with numerous arrests.) User2534 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lockdown still going on for fourth day. With Internet and cats phenomenon. HalfW (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above SNOW KEEP, and let's put our energies into building the article. Leaving this debate open does inhibit work on the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made the news in Peru[27] and editorial analysis in Israel [28]. Clearly meets WP:EVENT, including WP:LASTING with multiple analysis articles written already, WP:GEOSCOPE (1.4 million people city), WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE. This nomination is a violation of WP:RAPID. Legacypac (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree RAPID actually is useful, and didn't see till now, for current events they're more likely to be merged/userfy etc (which is a valid outcome here). It also says "Editors are encouraged to write about breaking news events in Wikinews instead of in Wikipedia". Widefox; talk 15:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need Procedural Close as this nomination has been effectively withdrawn by User:WideFox or is the wrong forum as they are now actually advocating merger of the article. That is a different process, suggest starting an RfC on the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin I haven't withdrawn it, User:Legacypac please don't suggest I have. BTW, I don't get pinged if you spell my account incorrectly. Widefox; talk 15:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the discussion has shifted to rename, which does not belong at AFD. this, presumably, is what was meant by "effectively withdrawn".User:Widefox, User:Legacypac.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is clearly a SNOW KEEP, at least for now, as there is clearly no consensus to delete the article, nor is there likely to be in the short term of (say) a couple of months. There is a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether to merge or rename it, and if so to where, but AfD is not the place for it. -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively pinging, and claims of WP:SKCRIT #1 aren't helpful. Just let it run. Yes, you keeps have got some good points, but it's for the closer. Widefox; talk 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. not WP:SKCRIT, Impsswoon (and I) are suggesting a WP:SNOWCLOSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can suggest it, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen. You have made your opinions more than clear please do not take this into WP:DISRUPTION. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The appeals to NOTNEWS are off base - that guideline is for routine mainly local stuff which this is not. Lockdown is a good place to mention this event because it is notable. If it were not notable it would not deserve a mention at Lockdown. I also am suggesting a SNOWCLOSE. obviously key people believe there would have been attacks in the city or no lockdown - and we often cover foiled terrorist plots. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose New Name. This is so unprecedented that Brussels lockdown without the 2015 would work fine. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skiddle[edit]

Skiddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for relatively minor site. Beyond my abilities to clean. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia

Most of the material on the page is isolated mentions, or the company's own announcement of features, or readership rankings. The admitted coi editor who removed my prod has "asked our comms dept to bring this page up to date as there are a number of additional notable mentions..." DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I endorse tagged this article with my searches finding nothing convincingly better and even the sources the company employees now added are simply still not enough. Draft and userfy if needed as I simply see nothing better yet, SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Promotional tool. Edited by IP editor(s) who have openly admitted to being a director of the company (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=prev&oldid=691828103 ). Disruptive editing by putting links in to other pages to sell their wares. Company not notable. Using this as a pseudo-independent proclamation of importance and relevance (also the tone is very far from an acceptable level of neutrality). There's very little independent and reliable material elsewhere on the internet, and whilst their Facebook page may give the illusion of importance with its near 100,000 likes, the level of engagement suggests its true fanbase/userbase and subsequently its relevant notability is not worth of an article. If it does pass any sort of notability test, the article will have to be stripped down so bare - from what I can see on the article, every point fails to be encyclopaedic, non-promotional, neutral in tone and referenced. Rayman60 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Struggling to find more than passing mentions in reliable sources. Even if the company could be deemed notable, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to put in the effort required to turn the current article into something acceptable. Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created this page many years ago WP:COI, however I haven't edited the page for a number of years and it's been edited by a large number of people in the intervening period. Skiddle is one of the UK's main primary ticket outlets and I believe they are still regarded as the events website with the largest number of events listing, they provide a service for millions of visitors to their website each month. I think they can easily demonstrate notability. Cosmicsqueaker 20:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.101.20 (talk) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Take the above with a pinch of salt. Article has only been edited by a small number of SPA editors (mostly unregistered), transparently conflicted. Obviously it's not for the company to 'demonstrate notability' - we have guidelines against which to measure that and the ability to do so without interference from the biased subject. A bit more info following a more in-depth check of notability - they only joined their industry body STAR earlier this year. Going through about 6 pages of google results, all there was was a couple of articles in industry publications, some info on small scale niche blogs, standard stuff from a public facing company like their social media profiles and duedil.com etc and not much more. They are still very far from WP:GNG in my view despite how many people they provide a service for. Rayman60 (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have contributed to this page a while ago, as it is a large name in the music industry here in the UK. It's easy to say it's a 'relatively minor site' based upon google searches, but being based in the UK I can vouch that the company is of an equal standing to other entries currently listed without any issues. It's a sad day when entries are being judged upon how much PR they have generated. I completely agree we do not want entries from unknown or minor companies but this is not the case here. The entry does need editing to remove the promotional language, which is perhaps the underlying issue, rather than notability? A quick google would also confirm the turnover, alexa ranking, etc (currently 255th in UK). How does this compare with entries such as Resident Advisor who have less references, use promotional language and are of less notable standing in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.3.71 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - In response to the above statement: This is your first contribution from this IP address so can you please clarify which edits you made? And do you have any connection with the site?

Promotional language isn't the issue here. That IS an issue, but a separate one. One that can be fixed. And once this debate is settled, if the result is keep, the article will have to be brought in line with standards. It's only survived in its current state for this long because it has flown under the radar, however from now on I'm sure a number of editors will be aware of it and tone it down considerably. The only issue being discussed here with regards to deletion is notability. Highlighting websites that appear less notable isn't a valid argument in support of your page. If you think they fail notability, you can nominate it whilst putting forward your case based on notability guidelines (although I wouldn't suggest doing it as a purely retaliatory move). Number of references again is not an appropriate manner in which to judge an article. Tyson Fury's page has half the number of references of Skiddle, but it's not going to be deleted because that's not part of the criteria eligibility and notability is measured on. Technically, if we're whipping out Alexa ranks, RA is a more global site and ranks higher than skiddle. It also has 4 times as many FB likes and genuine engagement. And a Webby Award. Issues such as you considering it being a sad day that PR generated drives wiki qualification is a personal view, as there are published guidelines against which these debates are considered. Similarly, vouching for a website on your first contribution does not sway the discussion because the ways these things are assessed is pre-agreed, not influenced by personal opinion, no matter how passionate they are. Rayman60 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I know someone above said they didn't have time to attempt a clean up but I've spent a few hours having a pretty good go and hopefully without all the unverified statements, citations/references from their own site/blog, promotional language, etc - I know think it can stay. I've reduced the number of references by two thirds! It's clear from what I've seen that whilst it's no Ticketmaster, the site is serving a lot of people, is well known in the music industry and seems to be fairly involved in it. If kept it'd need a close eye keeping on it so it doesn't revert back to the promotional side, I've noted the above mention of a press office making edits which we clearly don't need or want. Lancshero (talk) 00:34, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. S. Upthegrove[edit]

C. S. Upthegrove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:notability. Sources are all directly linked to the subject (the CNN link is the unverified blog site anyone can edit). Appears to be promotion. JamesG5 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored this page, the creator of the original article keeps blanking it, along with his own talk page. JamesG5 (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't find reliable independent coverage establishing notability. Emmanuel TV (coverage on the CNN blog site) is owned by T. B. Joshua's church and is therefore not independent coverage. AtticusX (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find sources to add, subject apparently fails WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also, the creator apparently wishes to have the page deleted. clpo13(talk) 19:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G7 because only author has blanked page 3 times. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Douglas Scott[edit]

George Douglas Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. Ref 4 refers to the subject being one of a number of people who won an award - however winning an award does not by itself infer notability. There does not appear to be wide coverage of this individual. isfutile:P (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One reference is Profile: Doug Scott of Tedco on Tyneside - is that a "passing mention"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep as nominations seems to be in bad faith. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion#The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2010. Even though the Queen's Award does confer some notability, there are guidelines other than WP:GNG to consider. For example, because all four of the sources cited in the article were published in the immediate wake of the award, WP:BLP1E becomes relevant. And so is WP:NOPAGE. Other than its discussion of the Queen's Award, all of the detail in the article is unencyclopedic -- where he attended university, his early jobs as a programmer and librarian, etc. Brief biographical data and a quote from the Queen's Award booklet could easily fit in a list of the 2010 awardees. By the way, the Financial Times profile was behind a paywall, so I didn't read it. But it is used only once in the article, as one of two sources for a paragraph containing biographical detail. Most of that detail could equally well have been sourced from the Journal article, so it isn't clear what additional information was being added by the FT profile. And finally, I note that the article Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (2010) already exists as a redirect to the article on the Queen's Award. Perhaps the better solution is to expand that redirect article into an article on all of that year's awardees, where brief biographical sketches on each awardee can be included. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for NewYorkActuary. Some say the award is good enough, some don't, so we can't really say that it means probable notability. The sources do not show major significance of individuals winning the award. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 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 18:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Won a Queen's Award that is only given to one person a year to honour a lifetime of promoting enterprise in the UK. This level of national recognition is sufficient in itself to establish notability.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ederyn Williams[edit]

Ederyn Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. There does not appear to be wide third party coverage of this individual. isfutile:P (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:TROUT nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to award - lack of good coverage and the award doesn't mean probable notability. In a similar AfD, some found the award to be good enough, others didn't, that closed as no consensus so it's not really a strong reason for keeping. Other nominations haven't been speedy keep'd simply because of the award so they seem perfectly reasonable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a couple of newly sourced details. I'm not fully convinced the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is prima facie indication of notability, but it certainly adds to the mix. There are 10 awarded each year, with 1 lifetime achievement award (which I would definitely take as establishing notability). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:05, 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 18:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Davidson (business)[edit]

Paul Davidson (business) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. isfutile:P (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:TROUT nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to award - lack of good coverage and the award doesn't mean probable notability. In a similar AfD, some found the award to be good enough, others didn't, that closed as no consensus so it's not really a strong reason for keeping. Other nominations haven't been speedy keep'd simply because of the award so they seem perfectly reasonable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 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 18:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Nelson (businessman)[edit]

Kenneth Nelson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:TROUT nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to award - lack of good coverage and the award doesn't mean probable notability. In a similar AfD, some found the award to be good enough, others didn't, that closed as no consensus so it's not really a strong reason for keeping. Other nominations haven't been speedy keep'd simply because of the award so they seem perfectly reasonable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How do we know anything in this article is true? isfutile:P (talk) 20:59, 17 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 18:50, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Denny (professor)[edit]

Simon Denny (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:TROUT user for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google turns up plenty of ref content. Szzuk (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I can't find any reliable third party sources.isfutile:P (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 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 18:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recently added sourced information on his research from The Guardian. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. does not meet WP:PROF (or the GNG) The Guardian item is a blog posting. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's rather a difference between a blog on blogspot and a blog in a national newspaper; I would regard the latter as the digital media equivalent of a column.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 06:20, 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 Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UnitesUs[edit]

UnitesUs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail the notability guideline at WP:CORP. The spammy corporatese could be eliminated with a rewrite, but sourced to what? Existing sources are not intellectually independent of the subject, but still are trivial and tangential in their coverage. I was unable to find anything better online. VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This UnitesUs article I believe does meet the notability guideline in section WP:CORP, specifically the section stating, “The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.” New York Times, Fox News, and The Economist are reliable independent sources. Moreover, found within the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), under the Primary Criteria section, it mentions “If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability.”, which again, the UnitesUs article has adhered to, listing at least 5 sources. Under this section, to make up for “trivial coverage”, the article has to list multiple [2] independent sources which should be cited to establish notability, which in fact the UnitesUs article carries out. Lastly, as for the “spammy corporatese” statement, the UnitesUs article was written in the same manner in which the CareerBuilder AND Yahoo! HotJobs Wikipedia articles were written. TonyAbba (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three sources plus the same dead link used twice, actually. But 5, 10, or 25 sources would not meet the notability criterion if they were the same quality as the ones currently used in the article. There are two key problems with them is it pertains to assessing notability: they are not independent of the subject due to the financial connection, and they are trivial in nature (all tangentially covering the subject with the same three-sentence press release summary). VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you interpret the rules of Wikipedia, based on what is stated on Wikipedia’s Notability (organizations and companies) article, this article adheres to what Wikipedia states as acceptable... despite it being “tangential” coverage in your eyes. There are multiple sources listed from reliable independent sources. TonyAbba (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the sources are trivial and not independent of the topic. Sources would need to be presented that address both issues to demonstrate notability as discussed at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand that the sources were not published by IBM, which UnitesUs is affiliated with, but by third party, credible sources such as CNBC, New York Times and The Economist. Moreover, the WP:ORGIND article that you reference states "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles...". These sources used in the UnitesUs article are newspaper articles. TonyAbba (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Every source presented either quotes or closely paraphrases the same three sentences from this press release. Pasting in more sources that do the same does nothing to establish notability, because of the lack of both depth and intellectual independence. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Obviously if the subject wasn't notable, no other source would publish the information. Common sense goes a long way. Moreover, the UnitesUs article adheres to the 4 cardinal policies governing the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies are allowed in the main namespace:(Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). TonyAbba (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 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 18:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references are clearly incidental mentions, not references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I would consider this almost an A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Ki Baat[edit]

Aaj Ki Baat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film of no note. KDS4444Talk 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
And using WP:INDAFD we find "Aaj Ki Baat (1955)" "Leela Chitnis"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 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 18:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Allan[edit]

Timothy Allan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains minimal content and the subject is not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:TROUT nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion#The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2010. Even though the Queen's Award does confer some notability, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOPAGE need to be considered. If not for the Queen's Award, it is extremely unlikely that this article could ever pass the general notability guidelines. As for the subject's accomplishments after receiving the award, the sourced statements tell us only that he was a chairman of a museum and a member of a Chamber of Commerce. There is not enough here to merit a stand-alone article and a redirect is appropriate. In this regard, I note that the article Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (2010) already exists as a redirect to the article on the Queen's Award. Perhaps the better solution is to expand that redirect article into an article on all of that year's awardees, where brief biographical sketches on each awardee can be included. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - lack of good coverage and the award doesn't mean probable notability. In a similar AfD, some found the award to be good enough, others didn't, that closed as no consensus so it's not really a strong reason for keeping. Other nominations haven't been speedy keep'd simply because of the award so they seem perfectly reasonable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note there is coverage sufficient to meet GNG. For example: James Williamson (30 April 2014). "Chamber turn to Allan as new president takes reins".. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a big fish in however small a pond Scottish property development might be. Press coverage of his activities *readily available on the internet* spans the period 2010-2015 in various outlets. I've also seen mentions of him as FRSA but can't find confirmation of this from independent reliable sources freely available online. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (editing)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consensus is that the award does not provide sufficient evidence for notability. Makes no sense to redirect to the award article, for it should contain only a list of the notable people who have received the award. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 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 'tagged and deleted as A7 as I saw and tagged this as an obvious A7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harshdip Singh Deogan[edit]

Harshdip Singh Deogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to fail to show references, has minimal to no content, and appears to have a severe COI issue based on the author username. Rarkenin (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure: withdrawing nomination. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

UPX[edit]

UPX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no independent secondary sources to corroborate its notability, and hasn't had any since it was written back. Kept after a 2005 AfD that featured mostly WP:ITSPOPULAR-style arguments. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've just added [29] two book sources found easily through a Google book search. There are lots more out there. We decide to keep an article based on whether sources exist, not whether they've been cited. But as things now stand, they both exist AND they've been cited. Did nom attempt to do a search for sources before making the nomination? It doesn't appear so. Msnicki (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable. Do a Google Book search on e.g. "UPX malware". —Ruud 11:49, 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 Deleted. as a G8 speedy deletion by User:Sergecross73. Michig (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic And Sega All Star Warzone[edit]

Sonic And Sega All Star Warzone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fan-made video game, but does not appear to be a hoax. However, it might still be made up, as so far all I can find is art. Adam9007 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedy deleted the article. If you've got any doubts, feel free to contact me at my talk page, but there are reasons upon reasons why this is fake. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 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. Outcome for B5470 road only, all other listed roads were not tagged properly. It's not obvious that they could be WP:BUNDLED neither. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B5470 road[edit]

B5470 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable roads, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Also nominating B4347 road, B1108 road, B1110 road, B1120 road, B1436 road, B1145 road, B1149 road, B1159 road, B1354 road, B2177 road. –Davey2010Talk 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure how we assess the notability of a minor road. It is hard to conclude, unless they have a specific name or historical record of importance, that they're notable in my view. For example Ermin_Way seems to me to have a good notability claim, its designation as the B400 road (currently a redirection to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme) does not. JMWt (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any road can be notable if it has significant secondary source coverage, not being just passing references. When there are just map sources and directory entries, or passing mentions, it is basically original research. We do not need a stub article for every mundane B road.Charles (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for now. Fail WP:GNG. If anyone wants to dig out enough secondary source material to write a decent article on any they can be recreated later.Charles (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Named road, recognised high-level moorland crossing, useful content not aggregated elsewhere. Compare Snake Pass, Via Gellia, A5004 road for local equivalents. I see no point in deleting good content. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITEXISTS isn't a valid reason for deletion, As an aside it's a "recognised high-level moorland crossing" for the locals but outside they're all unrecognized and probably not even known to anyone else bar the locals. –Davey2010Talk 20:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is WP:UNKNOWNHERE a reason for deletion. This has come up before: see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom, which suggests little consensus. The Highwayman is certainly locally notable, if not nationally: it's a former turnpike road (whose history could be documented by an interested editor), it's a named route, and it's part of a well-known motorcycling circuit. No opinion on the others, though personally I find B-roads more notable than Pokemon characters, sitcom episodes and any number of other similar categories of article. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info, I've added a brief History section to the article, with a couple of references. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – B roads are not minor roads. In my opinion all B roads are inherently notable, just like any populated place is assumed notable. Oculi (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A roads are considered notable, B roads aren't. –Davey2010Talk 01:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep B5470 road, delete others - B roads are rarely notable, most of these don't fall into the notability cateogry. I'm not claiming that the B5470 is notable, however I feel it has potential so I'm erring on the side of caution on that one Jeni (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing my preference, this AfD can't stand as procedure has not been followed. Jeni (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Such a sweeping and wide nomination makes it difficult to assess each article individually, I advise the nominator to withdraw, regardless of my comment above and nominate each individually, or at least in smaller chunks of similar articles. Jeni (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These still haven't been nominated for deletion properly - there's no template on most of the articles. Peter James (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if it has any relevance, but the B5470 is formed from parts of former A roads ( A6 and A5002) WhaleyTim (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment - Well I originally closed as Keep as it seems a better idea to nom individually... But Charles wasn't happy with that hence it being reopened so can an admin just wrap this shit up. –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should have just been left closed and nominated individually. Even though my preference was to delete most, there is no way this can happen in this nom, it's too broad and wasn't implemented properly. I urge User:Charlesdrakew to revert his reopening in the interests of common sense. Procedure has not been followed so any result of this AfD can't stand. I urge whoever renominates these individually to spread the nominations over the space of a couple of weeks, to allow editors sufficent time to judge each article on it's merits, rather than resorting to blanket statements (as so often happens) (Just my opinion on the way forward) Jeni (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Er? I have nor reopened anything recently.Charles (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this not you? Jeni (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I see I did. Must have been an unintended click. Not intended but it was an inappropriate close anyway.Charles (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that it was an appropriate closure, pending renominating each individually. It's just common sense that this isn't going to result in a delete (speaking as someone who !voted delete for most), the nomination is far too broad. Regardless of that, the nomination hasn't been executed correctly, templates haven't been placed on each article that has been nominated. I see no point in fixing this myself as it won't close as anything other than keep or no consensus.
    Logic dictates, leave this discussion be, and allow Davey to renominate individually. Yes, policy states that the discussion should stay open, but surely you can see how common sense would overrule it in this instance, given that there are going to be nominations following this? I urge you to revert your reopening. Jeni (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeni - I should probably admit that when I nominate more than one article in one AFD I never place AFD tags on the individual articles (Same goes with MFD) .... When I used to add them individually it was always the regulars !voting so it seemed a waste of time but meh we all have our different ways of doing things :) .... Well hey least we can agree on that this should've been left closed :). –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Dave.Dunford, I think this road has notability beyond being a little country back lane. It needs additional sourcing, yes, but we don't need to delete. Rcsprinter123 (inform) 11:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also agree with Dave.Dunford Class455fan1 (talk to me) 11:23, 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. Michig (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LibRadar[edit]

LibRadar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Application for detection of third-party libraries in Android applications, no third-party references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure what is the more compelling reason for doing so: lack of notability, suspected copy-pasting from an uncited source ("most previous studies", "we have identified"), or the promotional tone. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:32, 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. Michig (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagin Photos[edit]

Imagin Photos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Image viewing software that fails the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Pichpich (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advertisement. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches found some links but nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search shows that several businesses use this name, but none have significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:36, 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. Per the improvements. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Ce[edit]

Kingdom of Ce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this is a hoax because none of the cited sources mention the Kingdom of Ce ([30], [31], [32]), nor does Kingdom of CE show up in a Google search (the only results I'm seeing when searching with quotation marks are Wikipedia mirrors or sources that appear to have got their information from Wikipedia, and without quote marks, Wikipedia is the only relevant source that comes up). Also, there was only one author who added information rather than formatting, rewording, linking to other pages, adding categories, stub sorting, adding pictures, or, of course, adding maintence tags. I also find it hard to believe that a kingdom this minor would last 900 years.--Proud User (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page has expanded since being nominated for deletion. The version of the page that appeared when the article was nominated can be seen here.--Proud User (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The sources do mention it, but the article could use more sources and rewriting... How about this or this? It is a real kingdom or tribe, and I remember hearing about it. Keep in mind that San Marino has survived for over 1700 years. Liechtenstein is a true survivor too. Ceosad (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a hoax: existence in legend (if not in actual history) is corroborated by this source, a monograph published by CUP. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added the references I found, and their contents to the article. Ceosad (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Ceosad. --Deskford (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources added by Ceosad and others. It appears to have been an actual Pict entity. --Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Ce was definitely real tribal polity in early medieval/iron age Scotland, and there is no question that it is notable enough for an article (though the current name is not perfect). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep: Ce is a real legendary tribe, so I don't see the point in deleting the article. It may be corrected by deleting information that is self-published or false, but definitely not deleted. Definitely Keep. DominikWSP (talk) 20:14, 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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore Museum of Velventos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Folklore Museum of Velventos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted in an AfD which was brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to re-list the article for a new AfD. My listing here is an administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome of this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At the moment, this article is an utterly pointless sub-stub whose text merely repeats the article's name. Possibly this is because this is a tiny local museum which is not particularly notable. The evidence seems to suggest this. Even searching under its Greek name Λαογραφικό Μουσείο Βελβεντού or in English for Velvendo or Velvendos (alternative anglicizations of Velventos) yields little of any value. It's mentioned nowhere in the Greek Wikipedia. There's a brief article about its opening in 2006 in Kathimerini here and it also gets a brief mention in the journal Museum Practice here, where it's in a list of museums using a particular kind of lighting , and... er.. that's pretty much it. Of the external links currently in the article, the two with the most coverage are this, which is actually from the company that designed the lighting and this, from the town's tourist board. Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge to Velventos. I've cleaned the article up, made it marginally more informative, and expanded it to the extent it can be expanded, i.e. three sentences. Its highly marginal notability and the lack of any significant material about it in either Greek or English makes it unsuitable for a stand-alone article in my view. The article title can be kept as a redirect if by some miracle this tiny museum ever achieves sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added content. Several independent sources cover the subject in some depth, easily enough to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Suggest RoySmith withdraw.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 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 procedural close. Article was already speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List оf dесеаsеd hiр hор artists[edit]

List оf dесеаsеd hiр hор artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't need a Wikipedia page summarizing the deaths of hip hop artists separate from the articles which have already covered the subjects. Wikipedia is not a directory. Optakeover(Talk) 12:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Apparently this page is a duplicate of List of deceased hip hop artists, and I now understand the rationale of the speedy tag. Optakeover(Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Also take note that the page has been speedy-deletion tagged for A10, although I have contested it as I do not think it falls under the criteria for SD. Optakeover(Talk) 12:34, 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. consensus is clear DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Indiana Jones Interrogations[edit]

The Indiana Jones Interrogations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youtube based series sourced to a couple blogs. Can't see any claim of significance here. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Web-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this time this is just WP:SELFPROMOTION created by an SPA. It might help if any of the names mentioned had their own article. It does not meet WP:GNG. If, in the future, it does gain mentions in WP:SECONDARY sources then it can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone, I'm the maker of the article. I suppose it didn't strike me as that harmful to make an article for the series, given it is something that's existence can be backed up and it is steadily becoming more popular. I mean, any media project starts out without much 'claim to significance', right? Of course, if the mods deem it not worth keeping up, I can't stop them. But that's where I was coming from with it. Jones6192 —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – As the article's author noted, "any media project starts out without much 'claim to significance'". Given the project's current stage of development, it definitely is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. If Jones6192 is indeed the web series's creator, I wish you all the best with the future of the project. Graham (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again. Thanks for responding respectfully to me about this, and clarifying how the rules work. If it's to be deleted, I won't put up a fight. And thanks, Graham, for the support. Cheers, everybody! Jones6192 —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 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) Yash! 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Fox Glacier helicopter crash[edit]

2015 Fox Glacier helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of those low-fatality helicopter crashes without notable victims, WP:NOTNEWS. Already mentioned in Eurocopter_AS350_Écureuil#Notable_accidents_and_incidents Brandmeistertalk 10:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sorry but 7 people in a helicopter crash is NOT a small number - The criteria for inclusion tends to be much lower than that. This was a commercial operation, where 7 people died and the aircraft was written off - this is definitely notable and will continue to be for some time - the fact that 6 international tourists were on the flight intensifies this - The crash is currently on the BBC home page http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34893474 which tends to support its notability worldwide.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability has to be lasting, not just a few days in the news.Charles (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as likely to be in the news for quite some time. Significant as a commerical helicopter crash as per Andrewgprout NealeFamily (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noteworthy event due to 100% loss of life, and part of an ongoing media discussion over deaths in NZ from adventure tourism. As noted above, reported in the UK due to international tourists in the crash. Likely to be lasting notability but can only tell as the cause of crash becomes known. Suggest reviewing in a few months time when "lasting notability" can be better determined. MurielMary (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    100% loss of life is usual in helicopter crashes. How does that make it notable?Charles (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not particularly notable and certainly nothing ticks the boxes for a stand alone article. Nobody wiki notable died and no notable building or structure involved just another helicopter crash which are not that unusual sadly. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep March 9 and 10, 2015 helicopter crashes with 10 and 11 fatalities were both notable enough. As was the 2015/07/07 midair collision- only 2 fatalities. I don't see why this one would be any different. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was an extensive AfD discussion about the 2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash that also happened at Fox. Similar death toll, although at the time, it was the country's worst air disaster for 20 years. Those editors who voted 'delete' mostly argued that it wouldn't be long-lasting news. Well, they were wrong, as that item keeps popping up in conjunction with New Zealand's poor adventure tourism record. That is likely to continue, and from here on in, the 2010 and 2015 crashes will likely be referred in conjunction with one another, as they happened in a small place that now has had two air crashes, and they were both tourism related. Schwede66 17:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schwede66. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seven deaths in a helicopter accident is notable and there will likely be lengthy investigation —МандичкаYO 😜 08:23, 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 Deleted by User:RHaworth (G3 vandalism). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

234987 (number)[edit]

234987 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of the significance of this number. Proposed deletion from another user, and endorsed by myself, was contested. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 13:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankly, how likely is anyone going to search for a Wikipedia article on such a large number? GabeIglesia (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant properties in mathematics or computing. Rarkenin (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No claim to significance, fails WP:N. — Jkudlick tcs 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was deleted on 20:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC) by User:RHaworth (G3: Vandalism). Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per consensus  Philg88 ♦talk 06:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible origins of the bicycle kick[edit]

Possible origins of the bicycle kick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is at this point nothing more than a content fork of the main page at bicycle kick. It should be deleted. MarshalN20 Talk 09:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 11:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for a content fork, and smacks of OR. GiantSnowman 13:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. There is clearly no need for a separate article on this. Merge whatever content can be verified to bicycle kick assuming its not already there. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely no need for a separate article. There doesn't appear to be much worth adding to the main article that isn't already there. Spiderone 18:59, 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. Michig (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malikah Shabazz[edit]

Malikah Shabazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only exists because the subject is the daughter of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz. There is no indication that she has ever done anything notable in her life.

The article is basically a mix of trivia, and one criminal incident where she was convicted of identity theft. The trivia is totally incidental to the actual subject: her mother and father, and fails WP:BASIC: "received significant coverage in multiple published sources".

The identity theft part seems to have been covered in many sources. But WP:1E applies here. I see nothing special in this incident to warrant an article.

Basically the article is a mixture of irrelevant trivia and a barely disguised attack article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not independently notable, so per WP:BASIC they shouldn't have an article. Rcsprinter123 (inform) 12:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only "inherited" notability, therefore not sufficient; does not meet GNG guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet GNG guidelines. Somewhat of an attack page. Hlevy2 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her only claim to notability is her famous father. The mention of the trivial criminal conviction raises BLP concerns. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:50, 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 delete. "Commonly refered to in group chats by 17 yr olds" says it all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4Runner Lyf[edit]

4Runner Lyf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability is major issue here, majority block is redundant to Toyota 4Runner. No sources. Looks like it should be part of an article on the Australian car scene rather than a catch phrase related to it. JamesG5 (talk) 05:09, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A1. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjada[edit]

Sanjada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Test page ; Unambiguous advertising Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 05:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't agree with with the reason (Unambiguous advertising). However this article fails GNG. Article creator has written several other pages with few words and I am reviewing them all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:34, 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Melonkelon (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Oberth[edit]

Peter Oberth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources. Only references are to IMDb. He was given a "thanks" for The Bling Ring, according to this, but other than that I can't find sources that establish notability. Melonkelon (talk) 04:00, 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. Looking at the rationales on both side of the argument, consensus is keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Holder[edit]

Ginny Holder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Certainly questionably notable and improvable with its current state and I found some links here, here and here but there's simply nothing better aside from that fact she had 39 episodes of Holby City (best known basically it seems). It's also interesting to note that although this hasn't changed much since starting in November 2009, an SPA account added this version and then simply blanked the entire page (not sure if it was the subject or not, although if it was, I'm not sure why the article actually says she was born in both Brooklyn, New York and London, England). Notifying past taggers Airplaneman, Joe Decker and also Onel5969 and MichaelQSchmidt who may have some insight with this, although this seems certainly seems non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Well... that SPA had copied information from an Vanessa Ferlito so his striking was proper. But in my following guideline instructions and diregarding current state and actually looking at Ginny's career it seems more than likely that WP:NACTOR is met. Did you look first, or simply judge a poor stub? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me now, considering "Ferlito". You know I always look and I searched as much as I could and I found nothing which is not surprising considering her list of work. I wish you wouldn't be so serious with your tone sometimes BTW . SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've pinged me at a few dozen AFDs where the topics have been improved and kept. Just thought you might like to improve some yourself rather than bring notable topics to AFD for others to work on. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Cheers, Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for career meeting WP:NACTOR. Apart from her 39 episodes of Holby City and her joining the cast receiving specific coverage, she did star in 20 episodes of Family Affairs, and was in 3 of The Bill... and it does seem there are newspaper archives speaking toward her work in Wing Commander. Time to fix, not delete. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I very much doubt that single name mentions within lists of dubiously notable actor names is going to provide significant foundation for an article, and I say that having reviewed every article returned by the search given above. Certainly nothing has been offered which suggests the slightest hope that this topic will meet GNG or BASIC. No objection to a redirect to Wing Commander, however , if the actress is mentioned there, I simply believe that our usual notability bar is very far from being met in this case. --joe deckertalk 07:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her Own Rules
Pennington, Gail (13 October 1998), "ADAPTATION OF BRADFORD NOVEL IMPROVES REPUTATION OF ROMANCE", St. Louis Post-Dispatch
O'Hare, Kate (11 October 1998), "BARBARA TAYLOR BRADFORD PLAYS BY 'HER OWN RULES' FOR CBS", Buffalo News
Rohan, Virginia (13 October 1998), "BRADFORD RULES WITH NINTH ADAPTATION", The Record
'Tis Pity She's a Whore
Bassett, Kate (4 November 1995), "PITY IT'S A BORE - THEATRE", The Times
Gardner, Lyn (7 November 1995), "THEATRE - TIS PITY SHE'S A WHORE - LYRIC STUDIO, HAMMERSMITH.", The Guardian
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Doug Veitch[edit]

Champion Doug Veitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How it currently looks, this is unlikely better notable and improvable as the best links I found were only this and this but the first link (Books) has some 1980s coverage that suggests there may be more archived coverage if they exist therefore I'm uncertain regarding the article's future. Notifying author Yorkshiresky and past user Michig. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Black Music & Jazz Review. Vol. 5. IPC Specialist & Professional Press. May 1982. pp. 50–. Champion Doug Veitch On the face of it, Champion Doug Veitch and his Clydeside Rebels wouldn't appear to be tailor-made for the attentions of BM readers. But appearances can be deceptive. Mr Veitch 's opus "Lumiere Urban", a bizarre ...
  2. ^ Martin Charles Strong (2002). The Great Scots Musicography: The Complete Guide to Scotland's Music Makers. Birlinn, Limited. pp. 382–. ISBN 978-1-84183-041-4. Champion Doug VEITCH Born: Hawick, Borders. Dubbing himself "The King Of Caledonian Cajun Swing", this otherwise reclusive full-time painter and decorator was a bit of an oddball who fused Celtic dub/reggae with country and cajun.
  3. ^ English Dance and Song. Vol. 47–48. English Folk Dance and Song Society. 1985. pp. 4–. Closer to home we find Champion Doug Veitch, the undisputed King of Caledonian Cajun Swing. Doug plays an intriguing blend of Country, Reggae, Cajun, Soul and Soca. All combine to make a music that effortlessly transcends the sum of ...
  4. ^ Brian Hinton (2000). Country Roads: How Country Came to Nashville. Sanctuary. pp. 391–. ISBN 978-1-86074-293-4. The Pogues kick-started a new "rogue folk" movement, and the biggest rogue of them all was Scottish wild- man Champion Doug Veitch, billed as "the undisputed king of Caledonian cajun swing". He managed to upset country purists from the ...
  5. ^ Joel Flegler (1987). Fanfare. 4. Vol. 10. J. Flegler. pp. 298–. "You'll like this one," he'd say, handing me everything from elegant, wood-paneled jazz like this, to the infamous Champion Doug Veitch and his Scottish-cajun-country-boogie (three or four Fanfares ago.) A lot of the time he's right. Certainly, in ...
  6. ^ Blues & Soul. 461-473. Napfield Limited. July 1986. pp. 186–. Both ; on DiscAfrique, whose frontman, Champion Doug Veitch, has just released a 7" reworking of Mighty Sparrow's "Margarita". • A gathering of some of London's hottest talent takes place i at the Africa Centre on 20th September. African ...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vendela Palmgren[edit]

Vendela Palmgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches simply found nothing at all and I managed to find her IMDb page but there's hardly much as is with this Wikipedia article. I would've honestly speedied or PRODed if it wasn't there's information about national singing contests thus there may be some Swedish sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON, i.e. not notable. I made a serious effort to find sources, and only came up with the following. Dagens Nyheter has her in its listings, so she exists as a public performer, but the paper had no articles on her to confer notability. Svenska Dagbladet had a single short piece on the Junior Eurovision of 2007, with a bare mention of VP among the "other contestants", so no notability there either. Aftonbladet did a little better, on 31 August 2007 stating that VP was the "next chick to be taken account of. She comes from Saltsjöbaden and likes tennis. Her song is called 'Someone like you'." (That was the complete coverage). I guess that constitutes about 10% of the notability threshold, so only 9 more refs like that to go. According to the Swedish Film Institute, VP was one of the "other Swedish voices" in the 2008 Disney film Bolt. This may have been in a crowd scene or chorus, so I doubt this confers notability either. Other than that all I could see were puff-pieces on social media and blogs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree with the TOOSOON, except this subject's been around for almost a decade now, with no improvement for notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Afd is not a clean-up service. notable per WP:GNG per WP:MUSIC. She has been very productive in the music industry. The article is not up to shape, but as I stated AfD is not a clean-up service. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: She really hasn't; she's made a bare start and seems (from the Swedish press, I had a careful look) not to have got very far despite a lot of pushing on social media. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My news sweeps (including Swedish news) did not come up with much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:37, 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 Speedy delete. Speedy deleted as a hoax (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Schenck[edit]

Dylan Schenck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure if this is a hoax, or if he's just not notable. Adam9007 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. During his freshman year, Scheck gained a impressive 250 pounds. and Schenck went on the graduate from ITT Tech with a master degree in physics, he later changed his career path due to lack of jobs. He became a chef at the New York restaurant "Jones BBQ and Foot Massage." are attempts at humor. My guess is the editor is using his and friends' names and writing bad fiction. See also Roberta Grove. Will request a block on the editor. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Christian Abrahamson[edit]

John Christian Abrahamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. Article appears to have been created by the article subject. Verges on advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet appear to meet the notability requirements (WP:BIO and WP:GNG). Self-published author and likely COI Pichpich (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject is publishing through CreateSpace and multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up no reliable 3rd party coverage of the subject or his books. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or wider WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My searches clearly found nothing better and that's not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unable to find anything useable, even subjects website doesn't yield any clues to possible sources.Coolabahapple (talk) 17:17, 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 personally think we should include people in this position, but clear consensus has been consistently otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Fraser (UK politician)[edit]

Jill Fraser (UK politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Municipal politician not inherently notable just for being in politics, who is not notable just for being the first Liberal Democrat Mayor of Camden. She is also not notable by way of simply being a Camden borough councillor, also standing for election and being a losing candidate for a general election does not confer notability. Taken together these do not make her a notable individual as none of the individual events are notable and nor is the sum of the events. Sport and politics (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local councillor, non-executive mayor and parliamentary candidate. Not enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we accept members of the main citywide London Assembly as notable under WP:NPOL, we do not extend that to the borough councillors — and the borough mayor is a non-executive position which rotates annually among the councillors rather than being directly elected. While a person in those types of political roles can still get into Wikipedia if the volume of sourcing is solid enough to invoke WP:GNG, nothing here gives her an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - above editors provided excellent analysis of why this person doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 13:59, 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.

Sofia Rosinsky[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of MSX compatible computers[edit]

List of MSX compatible computers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "antiquated" doesn't factor into the equation, as notability is not temporary, and the MSX standard is certainly notable. A list where most of the items fail notability criteria (and as such don't have articles) is okay per WP:CSC. LjL (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lists where entries fail the notability criteria "are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic." Here, the items given aren't verifiably mebers of the proposed group because there are no references. And because their notability was temporary, such references generally aren't available. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Their notability couldn't have been temporary, because notability is not temporary. I feel I am repeating myself here... As to references, we have things like Google Books, the Internet Archive, and potentially, editors still owning relevant magazines or whatever. WP:OFFLINE sources are perfectly fine, you know. LjL (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you've presumed that this subject was notable in the first place and this piece doesn't present any evidence that it was. NTEMP says this: "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." MSX-compatibility was interesting in the 80s, but is now completely irrelevant; it might have been notable at one time, but now is completely irrelevant. Standards from the same era that were truly notable still have references readily available because their notability was not temporal. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of what you just said at all. MSX is a well-known standard among those who have any knowledge of home computers at all. It was definitely notable in its time, and as such, it can't stop being. LjL (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forget about notability. This is contested content that fails WP:V for lack of sources, and none have been provided for weeks now. This makes deletion mandatory.  Sandstein  17:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mihajlo Orlović[edit]

Mihajlo Orlović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability unclear. Adam9007 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I initially speedied this because I'm not gathering how the article is keepable and the best links I found were only a few here, surely not enough to save the article. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources sufficient to meet WP:BASIC or WP:NAUTHOR not found. - Sam Sailor Talk! 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Raj Dhall[edit]

Hans Raj Dhall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Abysmally written and completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local councillor. This doesn't constitute an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, and neither do subjective assertions of how he is or was the "best" practitioner of any given occupation — but there's no reliable sourcing here to suggest that he would qualify for a Wikipedia article for anything. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tried immediately to contact the article's creator for sourcing improvements. No response.Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An unsourced BLP containing a broth of unsubstantiated superlatives. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Google, leading Indian newspapers) turn up nothing on the subject. The career described in the article appears to contain no posts that would meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria, or anything to meet wider WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue of the Night[edit]

Blue of the Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable compilation album. Koala15 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN. fresh background added. (MACWILMSLO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MACWILMSLO (talk • contribs) 07:27, 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 to have been reached DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Youth Forum[edit]

Innovative Youth Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. I tagged it for speedy deletion based on A7 and G11, but the tag was removed. G11, of course, is no longer relevant at AfD. There is a lot of verbiage to read through, but it's obviously a puff piece. I didn't look at all the external links, but I did look at the refs. Most of them don't even mention the organization at all. They mention youth conferences, but not the organization itself. I think there's one that does mention the organization, but it's not really about the organization. It's about a nobel prize winner. I have not done any other research into the organization to see if there are other sources out there. I leave that to the community. To review the article, you're going to have to look at the revision before the copyright notice. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine rewriting a small article from scratch, just not tonight. Organization seems notable on first sight. Article is a real mess, though. PanchoS (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be basing your opinion on instinct more than anything else, but you have plenty of time to rewrite it. If you convince me, I'll withdraw the nomination. If not, the community can have a go at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  02:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  02:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had hoped I'd be able to say "WP:TNT it and let's write a short stub based on sources" to get rid of the abominable About page we host @ (Previous revision of Innovative Youth Forum). Unfortunately I'm a bit at wits' end here. Having (a) looked at all references, (b) randomly looked at a handful of the external links, (c) searched for Gnews sources, and (d) searched using the above WP:INDAFD search, I fail to find enough significant coverage to write anything. I'm willing to change my mind, if somebody can find better sources. Page creator cut-and-pasted from Draft:Innovative Youth Forum and blanked it. I have tagged it with G7. Sam Sailor Talk! 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I found some News, browsers and Highbeam links but certainly nothing for more obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve commandments of a creative individual[edit]

Twelve commandments of a creative individual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be an essay (disallowed as per WP:NOTESSAY) and may additionally represent potential copyright infringement. Rarkenin (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  02:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  02:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  02:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be some random essay someone wrote, can't find any sources for it's subject. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Blackguard 04:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as purest WP:OR in WP:ESSAY form. Almost worth keeping as a museum specimen of unencyclopedic writing, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:ESSAY and nom. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We really need a speedy deletion category for material such as this which is clearly outside Wikipedia's scope Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Arnold[edit]

Karen Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet GNG. Article creator has a history of inserting sources which don't back up GNG claims. isfutile:P (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject won a major award, meeting WP:ANYBIO. Also has coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG.
GNG does not require that there are sources in the article that back up GNG claims. Having said that, when I inserted the source it did back up both GNG and WP:ANYBIO. It is now a dead link. If you choose to replace it with a better link, that is fine. Until then removing the dead link, then prodding the article under BLP is an abuse of the system.
It would be useful if you could share the sources you found for Karen Arnold while you were making this nomination.
Thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment That's not how it works and the 'ego' and 'condescending attitude' isn't appeciated or appropriate. The onus is on the article creator to provide sources to back up claims. There are no sources to suggest this person won an award, and the link did not suggest anything of the sort when it was inserted. In fact the link does not even feature the person in questions name. Isn't inserting bogus sources an abuse of the system? As for WP:ANYBIO, until it can be proven that this person won an award which confers notabity, this assertion is pie in the sky. Advice - the article creator needs to back up claims with reliable sources, as per GNG and WP:BLP. isfutile:P (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to satisfy the guidelines.--Ykraps (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator is making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. This is looking more and more like harassment of the article creator, particularly with the repeated and tendentious characterization of a deadlink as a "bogus source", and the repeated insinuation that somebody winning an award for promoting enterprise should be treated as a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact possible to see what the dead link used to look like, and that it once provided a link to a pdf listing previous Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion winners. Whoever it was that called this link "bogus" owes somebody an apology. While it is regrettable that the list of winners is not archived, there is an alternative source for the 2005–2010 recipients here: http://www.enterprisepromotion.org/queensawards.htm. Whoever removed the previous link might like to replace it with this one. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your link:

what the dead link used to look like does not feature any mention of Karen Arnold, in the past or present. How is it relevant?isfutile:P (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It contains the words "Download a list of the 2011 and previous recipients of The QAEP (PDF, 198K) - Opens in a new window." That list has not been archived, but assuming good faith means not accusing other editors of adding "bogus" or "false" links, when the link they provided in 2010 still, in 2011, led to a downloadable pdf list of recipients. You can *very* easily confirm the information from other sources (such as the one I gave you, but the London Gazette might also be an option) rather than remove the information while adding denigratory edit summaries. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"That list has not been archived". Precisely why it should be challenged under WP:BLP. If you have good citation, by all means add it, but please don't add a link which isn't relevant to the article, and according to all available evidence, never was relevant to the article. isfutile:P (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link was added in 2010, when it looked very different; you are removing it with edit summaries that unreasonably assume bad faith. You are removing the information sourced to the link as though it were controversial information (which it isn't). You could very easily leave the information and add new sources for it, but instead you are removing it under false pretences (that the source was fraudulent; that the information is controversial). That's why I reverted you the first time I saw you doing it. Now you're either trolling, or you've got so caught up in your zeal for deleting these articles that you can't tell how troll-like your behaviour is becoming. Either way, I will not be drawn into an edit war on it, and I will not communicate with you further on this matter. --Andreas Philopater

(talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (redacted --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

link removal was correct for reasons already given. isfutile:P (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as I see how this would be keepable but I'm simply not seeing much convincingly better aside from some usual news mentions from my searches. If better is made, I would be willing to go weak keep but I'm not entirely convinced at this time. Feel free to draft and userfy until better is made, SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a few refs in the article but they have no depth, indicating she isn't notable. Szzuk (talk) 16:53, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (MC Shadow song)[edit]

Lost (MC Shadow song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lullaby of Pain (MC Shadow song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do a little dance (MC Shadow song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Resurrection (MC Shadow song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What I'm Saying (MC Shadow song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My personal opinion is that an article for every single song of this rappers upcoming album '88' (for which no article exists yet), plus two songs from compilation albums, is not needed and unencyclopedic. rayukk | talk 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I respect the opinion of rayukk. My opinion is that this artist is relevant and the project with the 3 separate singles has relevancy in that they are separate songs released apart from his future album. The name of the album was released but the single (Lost) in it's current version will not be included on the album, just the musical score in the film only. These individual songs are actually individual chapters in the trilogy - short film project. This artist and his team are creating something that hasn't been done before in music and would also be very relevant. It is informative and organic in that more details of music relevancy & significance will be able to be added and update thus article. This is not being used as some form of promotional tool but historical value based upon the artists historic Canadian music background and accomplishments. Additionally, this is something that has appeared by numerous other musical artists. oldschoolmc talk 00:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete all. None of these songs have ever charted (CHEER music chart notwithstanding). Frankly, I'm not even sure MC Shadow himself (or his group, Get Loose Crew) are notable either; and it doesn't help that the articles' respective tones are far from neutral. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Per WP:NMUSIC, every song that exists — or even every song that happens to get released as a single — does not necessarily get an automatic standalone article as a separate topic from its parent album. Rather, a song only gets a separate article if it can be reliably sourced as being more notable than most songs for some substantive reason (e.g. charting on an IFPI-certified national pop chart). Of these songs, however, "Resurrection" is the only one that's actually even attempting an actual claim of notability, rather than mere existence — but it misses the mark for two reasons: firstly, !earshot is not an IFPI-certified chart that counts toward a song's notability per Wikipedia:Record charts — and secondly, the source fails to actually support the claim. It's not the actual !earshot chart, but merely the tracking report that one individual radio station (CFRC-FM in Kingston, Ontario) submitted to the !earshot chart for calculation — so it quite literally counts for nothing toward whether a song clears the notability bar or not. I checked the actual fully-compiled national charts for the entire past three months, and the song doesn't show up at all in any of them. So there's just nothing here that gets any of the songs past Wikipedia's front door as of right now. No prejudice against recreation as redirects to an article about the album if one ever actually exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wannabe (Get Loose Crew song). rayukk | talk 18:56, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_November_22&oldid=1142624674"