Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 November	27 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is to leep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Painting With[edit]

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

This album has not been confirmed at all by the band and is purely speculation, hence the album violates WP:CRYSTAL. See WP:NALBUMS for more. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. However, I am not sure why nominator declined PROD just to turn around and take it to AfD. Typically, if you support deletion, you should wait and see if the PROD is unchallenged and the article is deleted. If the PROD is declined by a supporter of the article, then you should nominate for AfD. But I don't see the logic in declining PROD yourself and taking to AfD. Safiel (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, originally I proposed speedy deletion and that was declined, so I thought Afd would be faster than PROD since PROD takes at least seven days, and I wasn't sure how long Afd takes. Since this article is purely speculation I thought Afd would be faster. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out that Afd also usually takes seven days. Great. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect Keep WP:NALBUMS states that criteria involves: "...the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." There are four references to the article, but it's obvious that that number will grow exponentially over the next few days.
WP:CRYSTAL states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. ... Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." The article contains more than the album's announcement. It states its public debut at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, when/where the album was recorded, and its first single to be released. Hardly just "this band is releasing a new album maybe soon".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article slightly expanded. The album Painting With was confirmed to be a real Animal Collective album of new material when it was listed in databases — accessed through searching for a real Animal Collective album of new material. An official statement by the band would be redundant of its notability.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS also states "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". None of these have been confirmed. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You got me there --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would suggest just moving to draft until it's confirmed, which likely will not be long. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like the best solution. Can we just speedily move it to draft space? It seems silly to create an article based on rumors from Reddit, but deleting the article might not accomplish much if it's confirmed in the next few days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy (or Draftify) - WP:TOOSOON. It looks like there's an album coming, but beyond that we just have speculation -- including the title and tracklist. Even if we knew those details were true, there's nothing to say about this yet because it doesn't exist yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed from delete/userfy given Katanin's links showing it's now been announced. In this case it was fast, but I hope this doesn't appear to be justification for creating articles about upcoming albums, though. For every one that's announced arbitrarily during the course of deletion there are several that wind up being wrong, mistitled, based on speculation, canceled, non-notable, etc. It's pretty clear at this point, however, that this one will pass WP:NALBUM, and now that we do have hard information we might as well keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect. Let's not waste time here. Just keep or redirect to the artist's article until the album meets notability threshold. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I agree with "let's not waste time", hence not creating an article to begin with about an article for which we don't even know the title. The title is based on "fans speculating on Reddit" who "unearthed details listed on Sony's Track ID system of the track listing, the cover art and also the potential title". With no actual acknowledgment from the band, no actual album, and no hard information whatsoever, the only time wasted is not snow deleting/userfying this until it's released. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let's try to improve the article rather than dispose of it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Garagepunk66: WP:ILIKEIT isn't really an argument for keeping. Thoughts on the name, etc. not having been confirmed by the band (see above)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about the album that is known is already in.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The band has now officially announced the album, and it's been reported by news outlets such as Pitchfork. - Katanin (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the same reason as above. Enough of the details surrounding the album have been confirmed. The evacipated (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Further proof of the album's existence is here with the first single released on their official YouTube channel, including links to pre-order the album and a release date in the description. Nksor (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Costello[edit]

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

No claim to notability, basically no sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I really can't find a lot of sources either. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I entirely agree as the only searches that actually found links were News, Books and browsers....but they were simply press releases and trivial mentions, not surprising given the career position and field. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knife (book)[edit]

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

I don't think this book meets the basic requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Pichpich (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercunnin (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book was reviewed by The Times, Strange Horizons, Hack Writers, a university library magazine and won a local book award and was a runner-up in the Canadian Library Association awards (it was called Knife in UK, Spell Hunter in US & Canada.) Fences&Windows 00:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If all else fails, we could probably write an article for the series as a whole. That might be preferable overall if the other books aren't notable enough for their own articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Faery Rebels. This one is a bit tricky. We could justify having an article on the first book, but the next two are slightly more uncertain since they were subject to the law of diminishing returns that tend to plague book series - especially ones aimed at teens and younger readers. A first book can get showered with coverage, yet the next books will receive very little in comparison. The second book might barely pass, but it'd pretty much be a stub and wouldn't contain much that we couldn't include in a main series page. As such, I've revamped the page to discuss the series as a whole. It might not be exactly ideal but it does give us a way to cover the entire series instead of just covering a smaller portion of it, which makes everything a little more complete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Faery Rebels I as the author agree with Tokyogirl79's comment And have moved the page to Faery Rebels .Please delete Knife (book) Supercunnin (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you did there was a "copy and paste" move, and that is not allowed because we need to retain the edit history of the article - so I have deleted the new Faery Rebels copy. If the consensus here is to move, then someone will do it the proper way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the original article creator has now moved Knife (book) to Faery Rebels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Faery Rebels (which has happened), plenty of reviews now in article for notability thanks to Tokyogirl79. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been moved to Faery Rebels As per Tokyogirl79 and Fences and windows. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good outcome. Widening to be about the series and adding sources is a great improvement. I was editing from my phone or I'd have added them in myself. Fences&Windows 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now after the move, which looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no other calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford Cattle Society[edit]

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

Not separately notable. See World Hereford Council, which is. We do not even make redirects from every national branch of a society to the main one. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's the national group and specifically the UK authority on a UK breed —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm afraid the entire premise of this nomination is incorrect. The Hereford Cattle Society is the original organisation founded with Queen Victoria's patronage. The World Hereford Council, though the international authority, was an offshoot from the Hereford Cattle Society made in 1951. Originally the World Hereford Council (WHC) was based in the Hereford Cattle Society's (HCS) building in Hereford. It was the HCS who first established what specifically a Hereford pedigree was, and them who established Hereford Cattle as the breed it is today. The WHC arose much later, and serves a different agenda. I've updated the article to represent this, and can see that in its original stubby state this was not at all clear. That said, a simple google search from DGG would have made all of this abundantly apparent - a little hasty to nominate, perhaps? Certainly a little hasty in the earlier Speedy Deletion request! KerridgeN (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence for this, then the article on World Hereford Council should be merged into this. It doesn't seem to make much sense to have both. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have evidence, DGG, fear not. Have you re-read the article? This is a matter of quite openly acknowledged fact, and I've cited the evidence as such in my recent edits. If you need to I refer you to The History of Hereford Cattle by James Macdonald (1909), and to the constitution of the World Hereford Council (which is on their website), but quite literally any book on the subject will tell you the same. Also, you still don't seem to grasp quite what the World Hereford Council is; you seem to be thinking of the two organisations as essentially the same, just with one as being a regional division. This is not the case. The HCS is the original cattle organisation that systematically defined, created and propagated the Hereford pedigree - it's focus was obviously on England as it is an English breed. It's notability really is established so far as that's concerned. It continues today as the main archive of the history of the breed, as well as existing as the United Kingdom's national authority on the breed and a highly active and influential cultural and trade organisation. The WHC, though it stemmed originally from the HCS, is a separate (but connected) organisation which, though once based physically in the UK, acts as the international authority on Hereford pedigree, and has members globally. The international authority is, of course, the ultimate authority and has a contemporary relevance and influence in every country, not just the UK. It is a council, not a society, and is the international governing body, if any can be said to exist, which unites every country's pedigree authority, and which steers international practice and sales regulation, not to mention political lobbying in global agriculture. Again, quite clearly notable. The WHC is no more a part of the HCS than it is a part of the breeding society's for any country (the American Hereford Association, for instance). That's like suggesting that NATO should be merged into France. I feel that you may have pre-judged this without a clear understanding of the situation. As I say, the information is there and quite accessible. KerridgeN (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so you assert. I do not see how a book published in 1909 can show anything about organization started in 1951. And anything published by the society is reliable only for plain facts, not for interpretations of its own history. The article at present is also promotional, for the list of the current members of the council can serve no purpose except their own self-advertising. Instead of trying to defend multiple articles of so very closely related topics, that they be combined into one stronger article. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate, the HCS and the WHC are completely separate organisations which exist for different reasons, have different activities, different territory, and an interconnected history. The WHC is currently headquartered in Uruguay, for Pete's sake - how can you then consider it a subsidiary of the English national breed authority!? What exactly is the argument for merging them? Please, re-read both articles (and perhaps even try some research of your own) and then specify what, exactly, your problem is with them. KerridgeN (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I directed you to the book from 1909 for a history of the Hereford Cattle Society and detail of its notability (which is what you asked for when you made this nomination), and then referred you to the World Hereford Council's Constitution for details of that organisation. You snarky DGG, you. KerridgeN (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the elected representatives currently running the organisation are irrelevant to the article about the organisation (and frankly it is quite sweet that you think cattle farmers might get some great benefit from having their name on wikipedia), but have removed them for you in the spirit of... I don't know, whatever. You still haven't specified what, exactly, your problem with the articles is. What is it? KerridgeN (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with listing the individual representatives is NOTDIRECTORY. I think it possible that might have a conflict of interest with respect to this topic? (Unless it's a paid conflict of interest, you are not required to declare it.--for details see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure and WP:COI.) DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge the World Hereford Council is a prominent international trade organisation. the Hereford Cattle Society is a national agricultural organisation that, historically, defined and created Hereford Cattle as a breed in the 1800s. they're separate entities based in different countries, and each is independently notable. dont really see a case for deletion or merging. Heref (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Ashura[edit]

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

A POV and OR essay. No Reliable sources support this. The "ashura" is a mourning, it is like a festival. The only timeline it has is of three days, every year, and different people do different things on these three days, therefore it is impossible to create an all inclusive article. the creator most likely confused Ashura with Battle of Karbala and then went on to create a POV essay with his own cherry picked OR. I am proposing deletion with the cavet that a merge with Second Fitna may also be an option (Ty HyperGaruda) . Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge to Timeline of the Second Fitna or Second Fitna respectively. According to the Ashura article, Ashura is a ten-day festival and definitely not this multiple month-spanning series of events in 60/61 AH. Since the Battle of Karbala is only 1 day, the Second Fitna seems like a better merge target. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, I have edited my nomination to reflect merge into Second Fitna. Regrads FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashura and Battle of Karbala was chain of events that started from 15 Rajab 60 AH. Yes, Ashura is one day that Husayn ibn Ali killed but this event has background in a few months ago. The article narrated chain of event as title "Timeline of Ashura". I think that Timeline of Muharram is better tittle of the article. There are several sources that wrote about events that happen before and after of Ashura, for example: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, Husayn ibn Ali and Ashura and events that happen before and after are WP:N. This article collect all this topics in one article. Saff V. (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these four sources are the ones you have, I should nominate this for a speedy deletion. 1, 2, 3, are ALL non reliable websites which cannot be used in wikipedia articles. And the fourth source (coincidentally sitting in my personal library) does not discuss any timeline for ashura, I have read that book cover to cover and have not seen any "Timeline for Ashura" mentioned in it. Perhaps you will be kind enough to enlighten me by linking/quoting the exact lines/page from the book where the timeline has been mentioned. I may have overlooked it. Otherwise I may think that you are misrepresenting sources. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The al-Islam website is an electronic library that consist of many books. Books have writer and publisher. You can not say this site is non reliable website. When and where Wikipedia say the al-Islam website is non reliable website? Your problem is that search Timeline word in the source while The events of Ashura was a chain of events and you must read the source completely. Please read the text of the book instead of book cover. Search about the events that happened in Muharram 61 AH nit search about Timeline word.Saff V. (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then please link which books found in the al-islam library mention this. Name the books, their writers and publishers. Also "cover to cover" means that I read the entire book, not just the covers lol. English not your first language eh? don't worry, same here. Anyway, you admit now that the term "timeline of Ashura" is not mentioned in the book? good. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can find many of these books in other website such as this one. Another sources as well as have writer and publication name such as 2 and 3. The last book, also there is in Google book. Please search and evaluate the references carefully. If you have problem with title you can change it and redirect another title. Delete is not good way for solving the problem.Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, but unknown nobodys like Ramzan Ali and Ali Hussain Jalali who write self published books are not reliable sources. Therefore they should not be used in wikipedia articles. The third book is also self published by Lulu.com, and is therefore unreliable. So you see, you still have been unable to find any Reliable source to back your claim. To be frank the article is destined to be deleted, not a SINGLE source has been found yet that mentions "Timeline of Ashura". So my honest advice is that you stop using strawman tactics and use your energy somewhere else on wikipedia. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V. is correct in saying that the al-islam.org website is an online library. It is always best to cite the book (including page numbers). That a book is in the al-islam.org website does not make the book a reliable source. If the book is only available on the al-islam.org website, that is fairly good evidence that it is an unreliable source. How reliable the transcription of books is on the al-islam.org website is hard to know - i.e. do they cherry pick, or censor out bits they do not like.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book show chain of events that happened in the Karbala.Saff V. (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V. the book does nothing of that sort. It mentions the conflict just as all other sources, no timeline appears to have been given. Can you give the exact page number where the timeline/chain is given? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: I said: show chain of events that happened and did not say has chain word. Why you search chain or timeline in the source? If you have issues with title you can make redirect. Read Stand-alone list articles policy.Saff V. (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep; no point merging into another article because the citations are unreliable. This article is on a notable topic - the Karbala campaign, which has received significant coverage in many reliable sources (as well as many works of fiction, which not everybody realises are works of fiction). The article could be improved by using Western dates, and by having more and better sources. I would have given it a non-religious title - but that could be fixed by having a redirect to the current name, and amending the first line of the article to reflect two article names.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious problem with sourcing and POV. Not only are some sources unreliable, but some do not substantiate the facts claimed for them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Second Fitna Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Stand-alone list articles policy, a timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. The timeline of Ashura article listed sequence of events that happened before and after Ashura. @Sa.vakilian:, what is your idea? Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the title, but the topic seems to be one which is useful to someone, providing there are good quality secondary sources to refer to. If those don't really exist, I can't help thinking that this is then a form of WP:OR and the page should wait until someone writes a researched book including the topic to refer to. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is basically an awkward table of information found at Battle of Karbala and Day of Ashura.--Zoupan 07:48, 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 redirect to Kelly_Chen#Tours. Never close on one !vote but outcome's pretty obvious!, I'm not really seeing why the nominator couldn't of done this themselves.... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Impact Taiwan Tour[edit]

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

Unsourced, two-date concert tour that fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. Aspects (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kelly Chen § Tours. Not finding much source coverage; certainly not enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn of Rîbnița[edit]

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

I'm skeptical whether the anthem of a district located in an unrecognized state is notable. I'm quite sure it isn't notable when no sources backing up a claim of notability are present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there could, if referenced, be a sentence at both Rîbnița District and Rîbnița that the administration has adopted a hymn, but to present it fails N.--Zoupan 07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear notability[1], [2],[3], [4] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Мандичка comment. It's obvious that knowing the language makes a difference here. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly it's a real anthem. The composers and the exact date isn't found since most of the articles are in Moldovan Cyrillic or Russian and require translation. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be uploaded, now would it? Sereniama (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel Ox[edit]

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

Article is entirely unsourced, the article lacks notability and it reads as though it was written by the "musician" in question. It reads more like a CV than an article and appears to be an attempt at self promotion. Dalamani (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found was only passing mentions at News, Highbeam and browsers. Notifying past user Drmies. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While we have articles on three of the bands that he has been lead singer of it wouldn't make sense to delete this. Coverage exists, e.g.: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Michig (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, this is not bad (I looked at the first two). Can you please put your considerable talent to work on article improvement? Fix it up, please--previous versions were terrible. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy to look at it. It needs to be looked at along with the articles on the bands that he has been in to see how the content should best be organized. His first band looks clearly notable, and there's enough coverage of what he's done since then for the content to be retained somewhere. --Michig (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Article entirely lacks notability and is poorly and dubiously sourced. To me it reads as though its been written by the subject of the article as a CV of some sort. It does not justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Dalamani (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't have notability, subjects of articles do. Poor sourcing and tone can be dealt with by editing. --Michig (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics, regardless the subject and the article entirely lack notability. Dalamani (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all we have online is words, so semantics are important. I have stricken (struck?) your vote since as the nominator you already voted. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of new editors don't understand that we judge the notability of subjects at AfD, not article quality or how well sourced the article is. I thought it was worth pointing this out since you only appear to have made one article space edit before focussing your efforts on deleting Ezekiel Ox-related articles. --Michig (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what does my editing history have to do with this AFD nomination? Are you sockpuppeting for the subject of the article? There are claims (totally unsourced) on various articles on here (that all seem to written in the first person) to the effect that he is a notable Australian musician, even claiming Mammal as "one of the biggest bands in Australia". How is this justifiable as a Wikipedia entry? Anyway his efforts at being a "social activist" are far more notable than anything he has attenpted as a musician. Dalamani (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of multiple article-worthy bands, though the article is currently bad and needs more sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Further to my comment above, having looked at the Ox-related articles and what coverage I could find, his first band (Full Scale) appears clearly notable, which should mean that at the very worst that anyone proposes is to merge/redirect this article to that one. Looking at Ox himself and the other bands he has been in, I found:
Ezekiel Ox: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
Mammal: [23] [24] [25], [26]
The Ox and the Fury: [27]
Over-Reactor: [28] [29] [30]
The Nerve: [31]

A Google search is unlikely to ever find all the coverage that exists, and neither is any one person, but just from what I've found Ox is sufficiently notable for an article. Mammal looks marginal but I would favour keeping as a standalone article rather than merging to this one. The Ox and the Fury, Over-Reactor, and The Nerve should in my view be merged into this article - all have received coverage but not enough to justify standalone articles. The articles on releases by the various bands listed above should be merged/redirected to the band concerned. I'm happy to do all this, improve the articles and add these sources, but I'm not going to put the effort into doing that just to see the articles deleted. --Michig (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidelines on musical notability state:

1. Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

   Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
       This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
           Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
           Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
           Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

Now most of the "sources" Michig has provided fall well outside of these criteria, and many of them talk only about his political activism, so I cant see how they support the claim for notability. All coverage is trivial and note he has used his Myspace page as a source in a related article. Likewise with chart success, there is no record of any chart success on ARIA for any of the bands he has been in, nor as a soloist. This article, and all those related, are just self promotion. Dalamani (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Mammal did have chart success, their debut studio album, The Majority, peaked at No. 51 on the ARIA Charts. The ARIA Report ref for this is now in both Mammal article and The Majority one.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable via Mammal, and the rest of his activity belongs in a separate article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not notable at all by Mammal, the band never had any chart success as mentioned above, despite their own assertion to have been "one of the biggest bands in Australia". I am also concerned that there appears to be a relationship of sorts between Michig and Wwwhatsup here as Michigs name appears on Wwwhatsup's user page. As Ive been personally attacked on here for attempting to edit and nominate for deletion this page I dont dare say more, but I am looking DEEPLY into Wikipedia policies on this. Dalamani (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd agree that the article is poorly sourced. Overall I'm inclined to a "keep" but would want to see hard evidence of Mammal's notability before actually voting. Deb (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[32]. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- OK. Poor coverage but it does appear to confirm the claim of minor chart success. Deb (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard evidence of notability as asked for. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination from someone not here for the right reason. Close as keep and block. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- duffbeerforme, what is the point you are suggesting he is making? Deb (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal vendetta against Mr Ox. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Disruptive? Not here for the right reasons? And you people wonder why I am concerned about bullying and sockpuppetry? Dalamani (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer. I have never ever heard before about mammals (as a band) or about Ezekiel (as a music player). I am here from some ANI page, willing to discover why the discussion there was so loaded. Indeed, it was about a boys band ! Applying the Ignorentia Non Est Argumentum policy, I have done some inquiries. And now I am facing with an ocean of unanswered questions. Among them:

Since this is not the name at birth, do we have clues why this person is named Ezekiel Ox rather than <another prophet><another mammal> or anything else ?
Since Mammals broke, do we have clues why (except from the PC 'there were some divergences') ?
Since "After creating a huge buzz around their live shows, Mammal recently released their debut EP The Majority, which debuted at No.48 on the ARIA album chart. They launch it tonight at the Corner Hotel" is an absolute proof of notoriety, can someone explains why ?

In fact, I am rather inclining towards keep, from policy Other Stuff Exists Beside The Rolling Stones. But I am not that sure. May be I will comment again. Pldx1 (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm closing this early primarily for one reason: that the article appears to be an attack page against Savage for his actions concerning video reviews. However notability is also an issue here (enough to where I don't think that this would close any other way) since a search brings up only two sources: a Dove review and a Vox article about the film trailer. These are not enough to establish notability for the film, especially given the main issue of it being used as a coatrack. Despite having two notable performers in the cast, it seems to have been almost solidly ignored by the media. If anyone can bring up any good sources to show that this would pass notability guidelines I'm willing to restore the article with the controversy section removed, but only if the sources are particularly strong - this looks like it'd be a potential vandalism and trolling nightmare. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat Saves the Kids[edit]

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

Non-notable film, the only notability is tangentially related to this film, and there a little to no sources about it. Does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good catch, imo. No reliable sources about the film -- the only review I see is the blacklisted Examiner -- and it almost reads as a WP:COAT attack article on Savage, the videomaker? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only review of any length that I found was at the Examiner, presumably the same one that Shawn in Montreal found. There's a brief review at Dove Foundation, and Vox ran a short so-bad-it's-good review of the trailer. However, I found nothing like in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources.

For what it's worth, at this writing the video is ranked #14,797 in Movies and TV at Amazon. I'm not sure how this translates into units sold, but it certainly doesn't suggest a high degree of market penetration. — Ammodramus (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Non-Focusing on that page). Ok, I Just telling you that Know Your Meme website already classifed the movie as "Ironic Meme"? And for now this page will revived without Controversy section due IHE youtuber automatically won by New Youtube copyright system.2606:A000:85C0:E00:24AA:C4C4:C824:BF6D (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC) implanted^[1][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Maybe some day it will become a notable meme, but right now it looks like it's just glorified YouTube drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may shut this down a little early because it looks like the controversy section was written to take a swipe at Savage. This is already covered at KYM, who doesn't have to prove notability like we do, just that it exists. The Vox review is coming up as a dead link, but I did find this article by them about the film's trailer, and that's about it. In any case, given that the controversy section could be seen as someone using the article as a sandbox over Savage's actions (which bring in some BLP concerns even though it's not a bio), I think that it may just be easier to give this a swift end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/cool-cat-saves-the-kids

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

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

The result was speedy keep. In view of the improvements, esp by Chiswick Chap, I'm happy to snow close Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Harlets[edit]

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

unsourced and no evidence at all of notability. Creator has obvious COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no problem at all with notability, which is a function of what has been written in books, journals and newspapers, and not of what has been omitted by Wikipedia editors. I have added six independent published sources as well as the company's website. There should be no trouble finding reviews also, I'll look out one or two for you. This is a well-known, distinguished company of actors, and if I'm allowed an adjective or two for once, powerfully led, funny, energetic, creative, and invariably thought-provoking. But don't believe me, read the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article, per Chiswick Chap, but change the titel to the current name Scarlet Theatre, with a redircet from Scarlet Herlets. Thanks for adding the references. Martinogk (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap, and rename per Martinogk. Bravo to Chiswick Chap for outstanding referencing, including archived references and Gbooks. Norvoid (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no COI and good sourcing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:02, 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 Speedy Deleted (A7/G11) by Sarahj2107. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuperPAX[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Gillyweed (talk) 11:38, 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. KTC (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FundersClub[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. It was founded by a student with no coherent notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches simply found passing mentions at News and browsers, quite noticeably not even satisfying WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Googled the creator's name and they appear to have an undeclared conflict of interest. Run-of-the-mill article spam that violates more than one of our policies. Citobun (talk) 13:13, 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. KTC (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mittal[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. He is a founder of a non-notable website. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I entirely concur, only passing mentions and no better notability and improvement overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BLP, sources are weak and a look for reliable secondary sources covering the subject in depth had no finds. Delta13C (talk) 23:03, 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. KTC (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luciana Zogbi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much in terms of news, other than her two cover songs getting much attention (serious attention), despite the fact that she didn't quite stick to the melody on Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, changing keys with each verse; but clearly she sings better than Cohen who sounds like a gravel truck with sand in its gears. Think it's kind of too soon maybe in a year or so she'll be back.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) However, I do note that this Wikipedia article is getting substantial pageviews which has been for me an unofficial test of notability, suggesting my analysis may be incorrect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly much to suggest better notability and improvement from one event. SwisterTwister talk 08:54, 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. KTC (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Schools Chamber Orchestra[edit]

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

Uncited article about local school orchestra. I can't find RS to show it meets GNG — Rod ^talk 19:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I certainly found no better third-party improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As per nom. I can't find anything on them either. - unsigned comment by User:DiscantX
Delete - the page itself suggests it is only notable with respect to the Bristol Schools Philharmonia from where most musicians come. JMWt (talk) 18:15, 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. Sandstein 21:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue Australasian Network[edit]

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

Promotional, with excessive detail. Relatively local significance only. 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 ) 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not promotional in any way. Nor is it part of any promotional campaign? It simply states the history and nature of this educational network.There are many examples of similar networks on Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Teachers_of_Mathematics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Education_Association

and many hundreds more. Many of these associations are far more local than this association which includes New Zealand and Australian schools. Haven't you people got anything better to do with your time> Sydney59 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Somewhat notable, borderline promotional. I lean towards keeping a promotional cleanup tag, because I think it's better that Wikipedia has an article on this network and there's still a good amount of content worth saving on the page. Appable (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 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 15:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is not promotional and Wikipedia is richer for its inclusion. Given the boatloads of material on subjects like Robinson family, shouldn't we give some extra time to more worthy non-fiction, and populate categories like Category:Australian educational programs to maybe 1% of Category:Neighbours characters? Promotion? Promotion of educational programs? Wikipedia should have an article on this educational network and if not this one perhaps Duff Beer for me or DGG would like to research and write one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and duffbeerforme. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is not advertising. It was originally written by me as a history of the association. It received a "B" rating then and deserves a little more respect that some 'editors' are giving it. The association has been going for 15 years and deserves a place on Wikipedia. Those people who suggest lack of notability are either not involved in education or live in a Euro-American centric part of the Wiki world. The network is notable in Australasian educational setting. Editors are reminded that as far as neutrality is concerned ;

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

Please note: I am not even a member of this association. 58.110.175.88 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, this is promotional, and does not have sufficient notability outside its region. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Model Canvas[edit]

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

The principal problem here isn't notability-- it's WP:NOTMANUAL--this is a textbook description of how to use a program. Possibly suitable for a different wiki, but not for WP DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article can be made as the current version seems acceptable at first but could be better (so we'll wait until that happens). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and also as a WP:NEO. Appears to be an attempt to spread usage of newly invented term. My searches turned up nothing to add. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the problem is not notability, then on what grounds is there to delete this article? Tear out the parts of the article you feel violate guidelines; DGG and SwisterTwister's arguments are basically WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. riffic (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not a WP:NEO? FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is? What are the standards for deletion through the AFD process here at Wikipedia? Neologisms are quite common, for instance, this reminds me a bit of Value stream mapping or SWOT analysis, other notable business process topics. As it stands none of the !DELETE voters have given rationale why this article should be deleted nor have been able to point to valid deletion criteria. riffic (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"So what if it is?" Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that is policy. What you've just said is akin to saying "so what if it's not notable?". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy page WP:NAD does say that "neologisms are commonly deleted" but it does not say they shall or must be deleted. So far wp:neo and wp:notmanual has been the only reason anyone has given to delete this article. No one as yet posited any argument why this article does not (or will not potentially) meet criteria for inclusion, even the original nominator said "problem here isn't notability"! Remember these are policies too: WP:V and WP:OR; so far no convincing argument which bases itself on established rational for deletion has yet been given. riffic (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not well evolved yet and definitely needs improvement, but the term is widely used. A quick web search pulls up ~500,000 results. HansTheBanger (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GHITS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was found on the subject's talk page: "According to Google Scholar the concept of the "Business Model Canvas" has been mentioned in about 2600 scientific publications, see here, which makes it quite clear that this topic meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, see WP:N. -- Mdd (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)" I'm not going to argue against that. riffic (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, with no prejudice against a better article being created in its place. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts but the Closer of this AFD should realize there was no rational included in this !VOTE to say why the article should be deleted. riffic (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Wikipedia is not a manual. Also, for a term that has recently come into usage, ie is a neologism, we need substantive coverage about the term, not just using the term, per WP:NEO. Therefore, the !votes discussing usage are off the mark. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that under WP:DEL-REASON, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms" would qualify for deletion. I guess the question would be, can Business Model Canvas ever be attributed to a reliable source or not. I feel that it can be and already has been by a growing number of folks in the Lean community (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherskroupa/2015/01/28/the-key-to-imprinting-innovation-into-company-culture-is-agility-and-flexibility/, http://leanstack.com/why-lean-canvas/, http://www.zdnet.com/article/survival-skills-business-models-for-startups-and-large-companies/, https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-the-lean-start-up-changes-everything, et cetera). It feels a lot of times people who vote in AfD discussions have merely never heard of something, and consider that to be a sign of non-notability. riffic (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and a note for the closer. If you simply count the !votes on this I swear I'll drag this through a DRV. Try to build something better please? At the very least redirect to Alexander Osterwalder. riffic (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Louis[edit]

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

This page was created soon after the article was deleted via AfD. There's still nothing to support claims of notability. The sources consist solely of fight results and announcements. He's not even competing in the WWE yet, just in its minor league.Mdtemp (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was recreated shortly after deletion with the Db-repost declined on questionable grounds (point was raised by Papaursa). The article did have more references than the original but as the nominator they are not of high quality and he performs in the minor league.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if it's recreated again with the same notability problems, salt it.LM2000 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the previous delete comments. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and hence fails to meet WP:GNG and competing in a minor league of any sport does not confer notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva charcha[edit]

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

Sources and Google do not support the notability of this phrase outside of one song. —Swpb^talk 16:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's a transliteration problem. Anyway, the Hindu Wikiproject should be able to help. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 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 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 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. KTC (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hellier Peters[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG — Rod ^talk 13:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single one of the five sources used for support on this article say anything about Peters beyond that he was a Shipping Master. There's no assertion of importance or relevance of the subject. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 16:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Airport (TV series)[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG — Rod ^talk 13:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything anywhere about this TV show, other than a press release, which seems quite remarkable in itself. On that basis, I can't really see that it can be considered notable.JMWt (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Aditi[edit]

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

WP:BIO needs references from reliable sources, other than interviews. Many of the sources which mention her do not cover her 'in depth' as required. Ireneshih (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsourced content should be removed. I think it doesn't fail WP:N. She's an award winning radio jockey.--Musa Talk 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. On the one hand, a popular DJ with a big audience would seem to be notable. But I just can't see that the references give enough independent information that suggests this article is really about a popular DJ. Better refs would help. JMWt (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as this article could certainly be better and I'm not seeing that yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 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 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Musa Raza. Better refs need to be added and unnecessary stuff should be removed from the article. 59.88.205.154 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find no strong reason for deletion of article.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. extensively promotional article, which describes the show, but does not give evidence the individual is notable. I have noconfidence at all in the reliability of the references for the purpose of showing notability DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC) the[reply]
Delete. Promotional article and lacks reliable reference sources (cited sources are local / State level but the article claims high remarks like internet celebrity, digital trend setter etc. One life to live (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources, and rather promotional. I tried to find coverage, and failed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shrey Srivastava[edit]

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

Clearly failing notability inclusion Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikipediaMaster432: It does explain why it is notable. This is because he has inspired many people to start trading on the stock market, and has served as an inspiration to many. He is also the first of his kind to make a popular blog on finance and economics (which I will add now) and I think that this is enough to prove his notability. A 15 year old with a blog on finance and economics, the first of its kind, is a rare enough person to be featured on an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaMaster432 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah I think it should be kept as well, it clearly states his notability and significance, and I think someone as special as this kid is notable enough to be included here - IJustWantToLive — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJustWantToLive (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~Yeah you should keep this, people would want to read it — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondBarnes999 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)~~ [reply]

TheLogicalAfrican: I've seen this guy's blog, and judging from the hits on it and the quality of the blog, I think this page should be kept. it says why he's notable and credible as well and gives citations, so there aren't really any reasons to delete this article. wikipediamaster said it all before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLogicalAfrican (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Wow ... all the Keep votes are coming from the editors, who are just created with no other contributions. An attack of sockpuppets? ~~

Delete - I'm sure he's most unusual; I just can't find WP:RSs that say so; hence not notable.
SBaker43 (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. WikipediaMaster432, IJustWantToLive, RaymondBarnes999, and TheLogicalAfrican are Confirmed sock accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikipediaMaster432.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Content from confirmed socks above has been struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another blogger kid who wants to have his own Wikipedia page. 59.88.205.154 (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. The only source that appears to be reliable that covers this person is here - it was recently published, appears to be more of a local story than a national headline, and it's the only source that I can find that covers this person what-so-ever. Significant coverage is required per to assert notability of an article subject, and I don't believe that this is established. Hence, it fails WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lack of significant coverage. One newspaper interview isn't sufficient. 2601:188:0:ABE6:78F9:225E:C72:122C (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as said immediately above, one news interview isn't coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:37, 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. KTC (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edmardo Galli[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. It was created in 2007 by User:Edmardo and was deleted by User:^demon but now recreated again today by User:Dddsn. Nonetheless, I don't see any better improvements. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No convincingly better improvement and especially unacceptable as its current state. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 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. KTC (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct chamber of commerce for a small American city. Any notability is purely local, and the article is entirely original research right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly not notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is about the town of Warsaw, Indiana , pop. 13,559. It's chamber of commerce is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability.--Zoupan 10:04, 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. KTC (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marietta Meade[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR as nearly all of her listed roles have been commercial voice-overs and/or foreign language dubbing. This is formatted very much more like the kind of performance résumé that one might see in her own EPK than like an encyclopedia article, and cites no reliable source coverage to properly verify any of it. Actors and actresses do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist; RS coverage, supporting an actual claim of notability as an actor, must be present for the performer to earn an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So the IMDB isn't a reliable source? Is it not reasonable to think that in Belgium, if indeed it is accurate that she was the voice actor for those foreign films, her acting is notable? JMWt (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IMDB/RS, no, it isn't. It's acceptable as an external link on the article of an actor or actress who already has enough reliable source coverage in the article that her notability is already covered off, but it's not appropriate for use as a reference, and cannot confer notability in and of itself. And what makes an actress notable is the presence of reliable sources in her article, not the simple assertion of any number of roles without verification in RS. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems clear. Seems to me we'd need someone with access to a catalogue of the films in Flemish/French to be sure if she was the actor. Is there a specific policy on notoriety of foreign language dubbing actors? JMWt (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I was wrong, the dubbing was in German. de.wiki has these db for the actress - filmportal.de and Deutschen Synchronkartei - although these may have the same problems as suggested above re using IMDB. JMWt (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced BLP, unless somebody can rescue this hot mess. Acting in a series of commercials could confer notability, but it does not appear to be so in this case. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything on Google News, She's been in all these amazing commercials and yet there's not one source anywhere that confirms it, Anyway clearly non notable, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinematic (band)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep described in numerous independent sources, issued four albums, passes WP:NBAND. More sources have now been added to the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: The subject is only mentioned in brief to state they're performing (trivial coverage) in the The Age articles used as references (the best of the sources used). The "Brown Noise Unit", a website self described as "Media/News/Publishing" powered by WordPress and appearing almost forum-esque in nature, isn't a major publication and is questionable. Unearthed's current incarnation basically consists of a music streaming service. The National Library of Australia happens to have one of their albums in its collection, but their stated goal is to have a "comprehensive collection", not one notable to the standards of Wikipedia. A local radio station (i.e. Progressive Broadcasting Service, PBS 106.7FM) interview doesn't really help, nor does a twitter source (WP:NOYT), or the official website of the band. Albums: The number of albums they've released doesn't help notability unless they're through a major record label, which doesn't appear to be the case (I'm unfamiliar with "Somersault"). Lastly: If the subject does meet notability criteria, it does so rather weakly.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there's simply no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely - Somersault Music appears to be a slightly real label (also released Jimi Hocking) and there are sources. Pretty borderline though, I must admit - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has been significantly enhanced since official AFD notice. Somersault Music features a number of bands, including Australian music veteran Jimi Hocking who featured on one Kinematic album. Mentions in 'The Age' and 'Sydney Morning Herald' include detailed reviews by senior music writers. Featuring of band in North America demonstrates notability. - MagpieDean (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hanson[edit]

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

Contested prod, fails WP:ARTIST as well as WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Valfontis (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written and well referenced article about a locally notable artist. Martinogk (talk) 10:52, 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 Prospekt's March. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Day (Coldplay Song)[edit]

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

No charting success, no widespread notice, fails WP:SONGS. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Not a single, didn't chart, wasn't even on one of their major albums, but rather a 7 year old EP. Not a notable track, nor is it heading that way anytime soon. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet the criteria of WP:SONGS. 59.88.205.154 (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no administrative action needed. Peter James (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I usually advocate for redirects when it comes to songs from an album/EP, I don't know how likely of a search term that is going to be, with all the disambiguation necessary... Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Sanou[edit]

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

Sadly no evidence of notabilty. Fails WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of previously speedily deleted page as G11. Even if fails there, it should be deleted as lacking notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. He has won the premier dancing award in his country, and he performs internationally. Martinogk (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sanou's name is mentioned in several non-English sources, however he is included in passing not the subject. Other than that I see a lot of original research and advertising that isn't backed up at this time. I couldn't find any indication of winning the awards mentioned. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchit Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACTOR. Claim to notability is working in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai. "Official webpage" of the serial does not mention him neither does the IMDb page (which is also not a reliable source). Article based on single source that is appears to be paid advertising and not credible. This page was deleted few days back on CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a case of WP:Too soon, has appeared in a few films but still seems to fail WP:ACTOR. I couldn't find any significant coverage and, as nom says, the only "source" in the article is a self-described paid marketing firm.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article seems to be WP:PROMOTION.Pixarh (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not yet notable with not only actors notability one factor but general notability (GNG) another one. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear case of WP:TOO SOON. Could find no strong sources to prove notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above editors have mentioned that this is a too soon issue for acting, so I looked into modeling as it says he was a former model. I didn't find anything there either, so I think this fails on both forms of possible coverage for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsTeamAssemble (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree as above it's a case of WP:TOO SOON and no sign of modeling career with my search as well. Singh (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator in favor of nominating each article separately. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 07:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff B. Rosenthal and Elliott Bisnow[edit]

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

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

Jeff Rosenthal and Elliott Bisnow were previously deleted in November 2014 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Leve. Note, their creation moved pre-existing articles, so an ensuing page move (revert) has backfilled an original Jeff Rosenthal per that AfD. And, I am the author of the AfD.

Today, Jeff B. Rosenthal was recreated by a WP:SPA of Special:Contributions/JaredAskipoloma.

Elliott Bisnow was recreated in January 2015 by another single-edit, WP:SPA of Special:Contributions/Antontha_gonzales.

Reiterating the original AfD arguments of WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:BASIC, and WP:PROMO as content is functionally similar/identical to the now deleted articles. Defer to closing admin if WP:SALT is appropriate. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability demonstrated.--Rpclod (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my recommendation based on below comment of Martinogk (talk), I was recommending to delete the articles regarding Jeff B. Rosenthal and Elliott Bisnow. I do not believe that the article on Jeff Rosenthal is under consideration.--Rpclod (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely agree with above re: notability in the current state. Did a quick search and seeing Washington Post, Fast Company, NYT profiles.. some not used in the article. This needs a substantial re-write rather than a promo one-liner lede. Could use a couple sweeps to clean the puffery. Jppcap (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:43, 17 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! 11:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current coverage is simply not convincing enough and although I found some more at News and browser ("Jeff B. Rosenthal and Elliott Bisnow Summit Series") there's still simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found multiple sources where the individuals are the subjects as entrepreneurs rather than about the Summit Series. However, this article should be closer to a stub and would benefit from multiple cuts. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are links to both Jeff Rosenthal and Jeff B. Rosenthal. The former is a very notable statistician, that is widely cited and a fellow of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Keep Jeff Rosenthal. I am Neutral on Jeff B. Rosenthal and Elliott Bisnow. Martinogk (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator. The AfD scope is Jeff B. Rosenthal and Elliott Bisnow. Based on some comments of soft support, that appears to be unclear to some editors (due to the long context in the intro). It may make sense to relist as two separate AfDs. Defer to the closing admin. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the same page with all editors that Rosenthal (Canada) is notable given the awards he has received. I see that's not the discussion here just making sure lol. Rosenthal/Bisnow (Summit Series): There are several videos and news articles that show some notable coverage independent of the conference and about their background specifically. There's no need for Bisnow (and Rosenthal for that matter) to have drawn out articles with bios though. Significant independent coverage for the subject here -- prefaced it should be short. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am confuse what is going on here? There appear to be three articles listed, and linked to an AfD about a fourth person. Maybe I'm just a little slow, but I would strongly suggest that an admin should close as no consensus, paving the way for new, separate nominations. I can't be the only one confused by this, and that confusion is going to change, or at least hinder, consensus. FWIW, Jeff Rosenthal the statistician is clearly notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as nominator, explicitly to relist separately and reduce confusion. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now relisted as two AfDs, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenthal (businessman) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Bisnow (2nd nomination)

This AfD should be closed. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pandesic[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by anon User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 with the following rationale "WP:CONTESTED"; that anon deprodded a number of articles with such meaningless rationale before disappearing, likely a WP:POINT disruption or a spammer trying to waste our time. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stub, and based on WP:BEFORE the criteria is whether notabilty exists, not whether it's been demonstrated or proven in the article. Regarding "spam", there is no advertisement here as the company is defunct and offers no product or service -- therefore it logically cannot be spam. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs are not auto-notable. Please read up on our policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you saying that stubs are auto-deletable? Please cite the guidelines you are referring to. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, I am just saying that your arguments looks like saying stubs are auto-notable. And, for the record, they are not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Busse, Torsten (1997-08-06). "Intel, SAP form Pandesic e-commerce company". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
2. Bower, Joseph L.; Gilbert, Clark (1999-03-04). "Supplement (Field) Case Study. Pandesic: The Challenges of a New Business Venture (B)". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
3. Vance, Ashlee (2000-07-31). "Intel/SAP e-commerce venture collapses because of losses". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
4. Tran, Khanh T.L.; Boudette, Neal E. (2000-07-31). "Intel and SAP Will Close Pandesic In Another Blow to Net Retailing". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
5. Hall, Mark (2000-08-21). "Pandesic users still in dark: Shuttered e-commerce ASP mum on fate". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
6. Elgin, Ben (2000-07-28). "Can Pandesic Prosper?". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
7. Young, Eric (2000-07-31). "Pandesic to Shut Down". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
8. "Intel-SAP venture shutting down: Pandesic, a 3-year-old application service provider, is closing down because it couldn't figure out how to make itself profitable". CNET. 2002-01-02. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
9. Andrews, Paul (2001-05-24). "Failed Web Sites Live On, Gone but Not Forgotten". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  The article notes:
  
  THEY were once the Web's shining stars: Kozmo.com, Pandesic.com, PlanetRx.com.
  In the era of the digital plague, they have vanished seemingly without a trace -- unless, that is, you go to the Museum of E-Failure.
  Although this is a passing mention, it is worth noting that The New York Times]] considered Pandesic "once [among] the Web's shining stars".
10. Johnson, Mark W. (2013). Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business Press. p. 87. ISBN 1422157148. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  The book notes:
  
  In 1997, for example, SAP and Intel launched Pandesic, a joint venture to bring a simpler, less-expensive version of SAP's enterprise planning software to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SAP historically targeted huge corporations, but that market was becoming saturated. ... The market needs solutions that can break down these barriers [wealth, time, and access barriers]. Pandesic was an attempt to seize this market in SAP's white space.
  Being the offspring of two tech companies, Pandesic treated the challenge as a technical, product problem. It was led by managers who were deeply familiar with huge, complex global organizations, established markets, and well-defined product lines but had utterly no experience identifying and establishing an initial foothold in a new market with a disruptive product. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, its offering quickly evolved into a complex, automated end-to-end solution, which was neither easy to learn nor easy to operate. It marketed the product through the same channel partners that sold SAP's large company systems—IT implementation consultants such as Accenture. That core sales channel, however, had few incentives to sell Pandesic's simpler product, which didn't need implementation support, when it could make subsantial money on traditional SAP products. Encumbered by the business model that worked so successfully in SAP's core markets, and not fully realizing that reaching this new customer required a different business model, Pandesic failed miserably. It shuds its doors in February 2001 after having burned through more than $100 million.
11. There are numerous sources about the subject on Google Books.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pandesic to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has received significant coverage for its founding in 1997 and its closing in 2000. Its closing was covered by The Wall Street Journal.
The New York Times considered Pandesic "once [among] the Web's shining stars".
The subject was the subject of a case study by the Harvard Business Review in 1999.
In 2013, the subject received significant coverage in Mark W. Johnson's 2013 book, "Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal", which was published by Harvard Business Press. That the subject has received significant coverage in a book more than a decade after it became defunct strongly establishes that it is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @Cunard: This is a very thorough list. This reminds me a bit of Taligent. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Pandesic does have a couple parallels with Taligent. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Current state doesn't promote the company or its products more showing the failures. Cunard's research displays that Pandemic had significant notable coverage during the 1990s-2000s. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biggest question here, isn't to keep the article, but "Why is this a stub?" --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Froebe hill[edit]

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

Hill does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. I understand that the associated helicopter qualifies as notable, but that notability does not transfer to the surrounding hillsides and fields without references to demonstrate this. Also, it appears the article creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. KDS4444^Talk 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG per nom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To amplify my reasons for my vote: Given the creator's apparent COI as a family member, together with the minimal content and lack of any citations or other criteria meeting GNG, I don't see any justification for keeping this article. It doesn't quite meet WP:A3, WP:G11 or WP:A7 at WP:SPEEDY but it is pretty close. No voices have been raised for keeping it. Please, no more relistings, just do the decent thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Graham (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its coordinates and height (353m, making it the 154th highest peak in Manitoba, 11,098th highest in Canada) are known, but the only other information searches turned up was the origin of the name. I don't feel that is enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. Even if it does, WP:NOPAGE applies. If there's a sense that this information must be preserved, redirect to Spruce Woods Provincial Park. (According to the coordinates in the article, it lies just within the eastern boundary of the park, although the park website doesn't mention it). Worldbruce (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Goldfarb[edit]

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

non notable author of 3 non-notable books--2 of them are in WorldCat but in a single library each; the 3rd isn't even in WorldCat. The references are a mixture of blogs, notices, and his own work. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~For all we know this clown has been promoting himself even possibly profiting from Wikipedia.~~ Possible example of self promotional vanity page created by a SPA who is not here, it was unfortunately on this encyclopedia for 4 years. DGG I'm curious to know if the first version that has been deleted was also created by a SPA. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidholt. Unusually for a spa, he had created a fairly decent article several years earlier . DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hey, can you restore the history by any chance, though this may cause me to reconsider my vote, I've changed it to delete from speedy because there is nothing I hate more that a self promoting editor creating a promotional vanity article and abusing Wikipedia, but it appears this might not be the case. Unfortunately, I do not have the admin privileges I need the difference between an editor who is only here to promote himself with no other articles and an editor with one other article is huge. It is the difference between 100% not here and 50% here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done, it's a little unusual, but I don't see how it will do any harm; they can be removed later, The 2010 entries in the page history were the ones deleted at the first AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing better than some links at News and browsers, certainly nothing for a better article yet. Notifying the only still active past users Crisco 1492 and Armbrust. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Swister. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SwisterTwister Chris Woodrich I will consider my opinion based on other editors' opinions, it does appear the writer has done more that the two published sources on WorldCat. He has written over 300 articles for Daily Beast, Esquire and Milwaukee Magazine it was hard to find secondary source because he has written so many articles which flood the search. I was able to find these two source Huffington Post and NYTimes, the second source is about a wedding I don't know if you can pay to be listed or not. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - as it fails WP:Notability.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per wp:AUTHOR - "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - The subject and his work being discussed numerous times. (Incomplete list)here and here Forbes is talking about his work here here here here here here here here here Also Valoem's comments point to notability. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The mentions in other sources, imho, do not rise to the level of WP:BASIC, and he clearly does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cactus Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced, not notable Bowl broadcaster article. Prod removed without explanation or improvement. Fram (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Fram said. The Cactus Bowl may be notable, but a list of individuals who have worked on broadcasts of these games is not independently notable. The article is unsourced, and I am unable to find multiple, reliable sources providing significant coverage on the topic of Cactus Bowl broadcasters. Bear in mind, ESPN.com is not an independent source for lists of its own broadcast teams. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cbl62's rationale above: non-notable list of broadcasters for college football bowl game. Cbl covers all of the major points relevant to this AfD; no need for me to plow the same ground. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janrain[edit]

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

very elaborate article on small non-notablecompany. As a "reputation management" company, in has many apparently RE based articles in a local business journal. I don't see anything here that could be considered a reliable source for notability. I understand that this was not written as prmootional, but it does have that effect. Including long quotations from minor awards for "coolest company in Portland" and the like are an interesting way of what would otherwise be puffery. Including multiple years results from "fastest growing" would seem to only indicate that it is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as elaborate the article is, there's not much else and my searches found some links at News, browsers and Highbeam but nothing to suggest convincingly better improvement. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantive coverage by ZDNet, Advertising Age, Forbes, The Oregonian. Clearly meets notability guidelines: "A company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. "I don't see anything here that could be considered a reliable source for notability." Seriously? This company very clearly meets notability criteria: TechCrunch, The Oregonian, VentureBeat, AdWeek, Forbes, GeekWire, Advertising Age, etc, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is the bread and butter of Wikipedia articles: not something that is consistently front-page news, but something that certainly exists and has plenty of coverage. tedder (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree with nominator DGG that the article may be a bit heavy on long quotations, that deficiency can be easily remedied by paraphrasing. I strongly disagree that the company is not notable, as TechCrunch, GeekWire, AdWeek and Deloit are certainly nationally prominent business sources for tech firms. As a ten-year-old company, its remarkable early growth ("fastest growing") is part of its history, not evidence that the article should be deleted on WP:TOOSOON grounds. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's looks at some of those sources. The one in Adweek is a disguised press release, complete with a long direct quote from the company. The ones in Telechrunch and Geekwire are not much better. Forbes is worse: an uncritical panegyric that might have been written by the firms ad agency. These sort of sources are in practice based on PR to the extent that they contaminate not just WP, but the industry press. If these show notability, everything is notable. That is s good principle for a directory. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have the brainspace to do the research to determine this company's notability, but I have a procedural question (which I know I should just look up, but I want it here for the record). The article was deleted via prod on November 2, and recreated from scratch (?) on November 20. Should the deleted article not have been userfied and if this is kept, then should it not have a hist merge? Feel free to take this discussion to the article's talk page. Valfontis (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, but one I am unable to answer because I don't know the standard procedure. I would assume history merges are not done for deleted content (at least I've never seen the deleted history of an article resurrected and attached to the bottom of a newly-constructed article), but I would not be opposed to a history merge if others found it helpful/necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

normally the content in such cases is written by the same people. Such is emphatically not the case here. The Prodded article was a quite brief article without the detail, andwithout most of the references, and I think has clearly not been used in constructing the present article. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. The article was deleted before I began working on the new version, so I am not sure attribution is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the old revisions. -Pete (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eelco Schattorie[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a non-notable person trying to promote himself. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes point two of WP:NFOOTBALL as the manager of a team in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily a keep. Man managed two teams in the I-League, a league that passes WP:FPL and he has enough coverage in India I feel to pass WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY in spirit, has managed in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY having managed in a WP:FPL. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - Obviously meets FOOTY. –Davey2010^Talk 16:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Hi, Please i hope i am in the right place here to justify and explain what is happening here. First i am not a computer specialist and knows how wikipedia works. I am a professional football coach and some one in india --ArsenalFan700 made changes in my page by deleting 80% of my work history. I worked in the middle east where english links are difficult to find as they are in arabic and i can't read them. Any way please i do understand that one can edit the page but this remark was made by him after asking him not to do this:

" I don't care if this affects your future jobs, personally I have my own opinions about the job you did while in India but overall, this page is based on the sources we have and nothing more. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

He made it personal and dislikes me it seems. Please i dont have any bad intentions, and kindly ask you to resolve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelco Schattorie (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not letting those affect what is on the page. If you can prove those jobs in the Middle East and which ones were head coaching gigs then I will gladly add them in. If we can't find any then we can't add them. The best I can find is this which confirms your time at Riffa is as head coach but there is not much claification other than assistant roles and those don't go in the infobox but I can add them to the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 22:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL as a manager who has managed in a fully professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator is reminded that "no general reader would want to read about this subject" is pretty much the ne plus ultra of an argument to avoid. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto rapid transit signals[edit]

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

No general reader would be interested in municipal rapid transit signals; the lack of general references prove it. Esquivalience ^t 03:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toronto rapid transit. Sources like this exist, but there aren't enough sources available to substantiate the existence of this content in standalone article. epic genius (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT MERGE, because we don't need this peripheral detail overloading any other articles. If the information is valid, then it sould be left alone. If it is trivial fancruft, that is how its inclusion should be considered. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No general reader would be interested" is probably true of the vast majority of our articles, and a dubious argument against deletion. (It's a sort of privileged I-believe-it's-unimportant-so-everyone-must-believe-the-same-thing variation on the theme of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.) There's presumably a small but active Toronto railfan community – as there is in any major city – who actually find this sort of thing quite interesting, thank you very much.
Merging wouldn't make sense, as the diagrams and images which convey the useful central information in this article – the photos of signals and diagrams of the different signal indications – would take up a rather overwhelming amount of space in the already-beefy Toronto rapid transit article. Indeed, this is a textbook case of a situation where a detailed sub-article is appropriately used to provide detail that isn't necessary in the associated main article.
(It's also worth comparing with Automation of the New York City Subway to get an idea of where a sub-article like this could evolve in the future.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a textbook case of a split because cruft won't stick on the main article. The article comprises original research and overly-detailed TTC signaling. If any reader is actually interested in this article, then they can get information on one of the various fan sites that do not have as high quality requirements as Wikipedia and can host original research. Esquivalience ^t 21:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. This almost reads like unsourced WP:Fancruft (and is unlikely to ever be more than very minimally sourced). It's also at a level of detail totally unnecessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bottom line: Not notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A functional WP:SUBARTICLE of Toronto rapid transit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenOfAllTrades and per Northamerica1000 - When I saw the article I thought "Who the hell would read this crap" ... but after 5 minutes I found "UK railway signalling".... So just because I don't like it doesn't mean someone else wont and plus it's had some views each day[33] So I'd say on the whole it is a notable subject. (I am aware of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it's either that or an IDONTLIKEIT !vote.) –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more a case that the existing lack of available sourcing tends to show that it's not a notable enough topic for this encyclopedia. At least UK railway signalling is an article about rail at the national level, and has some sourcing (though I'd argue it too looks to be substantially "under-sourced"... just not to the extent to qualify that one for AfD). But this Toronto one is not going to cut it as a standalone article, once you cut out all the non-sourceable content... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above. We have a vast constellation of articles like this in the railway signalling by country/city category structure. It's too detailed to go into main articles and would seem to be a valid content fork. What's more Toronto's mass transit system is of sufficient size and notability. The article reads like a mass of WP:OR and that's where I'd start, at least with a maintenance tag or two. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Shawn in Montreal indicated one or two maintenance tag is where this article should proceed with, not with deletion.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A1 / G2) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandoler[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic: basically a dictionary definition. —teb728 t c 03:42, 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. Contrary to arguments made here, WP:CRIN is not labeled as a community-adopted guideline and therefore carries no particular weight in this discussion. Because no other arguments for keeping are made, and the arguments for deletion (most importantly, the lack of reliable sources to even identify the person) are not addressed, the "keep" opinions are unpersuasive as well as outnumbered. Sandstein 21:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)[edit]

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

Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AFD. Not quite identical - this player actually made some runs - but there is no need to rehash all the arguments here. St Anselm (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous deletion. He could even be the same person, for all we know. 117.192.163.47 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:CRIN, as a player with a first-class cricket appearance. CRIN is a simple and effective guideline; a line in the sand which is easy to apply and which solves problems. If you wish to dispute it, I suggest you come up with something that works as well, rather than an arbitrary line that could easily be equated with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But you should do that at WT:CRIC, not here. Johnlp (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CRIN is a guideline. Please see the closing comment on the related AfD Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria. In cases where an article is reasonably shown not to meet the gng than the bar is set higher and since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy. Thanks. SageGreenRider (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't disagree that this is an unsatisfactory article. But WP wants to be an encyclopedia, and a feature of an encyclopedia is comprehensive coverage. WP:CRIC has over many years interpreted this to mean that notable teams playing at the required standard for notability are ipso facto composed of notable players, and this comprehensive rule has the effect of simplifying debate about notability for cricketers. It doesn't mean, at the individual article level, that all articles are adequate, and in some cases like this one they are probably not capable of much improvement; but it does mean that the Cricket Project can claim to have a comprehensive (i.e. encyclopedic) coverage. If you wish to change that, I think you should come up with an alternative ruling that can be applied simply and that you should discuss it at WT:CRIC where the cricket people hang out, because this is a fundamental change to the way one of WP's more active communities has been operating over a long period. Johnlp (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree that the article is (obviously) unsatisfactory. I don't agree that Wikipedia aims to be totally comprehensive. Quite the reverse. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection. Articles should be comprehensive but only about WP:GNG notable topics. I understand WP:ATHLETE but in this case it is extremely unlikely that difficult-to-access reliable sources have imbued notability. Mr. Perera is not notable. I think the policies are OK. They just need to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Cheers! BTW, I love cricket. Played it from elementary school to grad school. SageGreenRider (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete, Google search only brings up trivial statistics pages, no evidence that this player meets WP:GNG. WP:CRIN is all well and good, and I wish we could have a simple line in the sand that is easy to apply, but GNG is the requirement that needs to be met; CRIN is only a guideline which suggests when it might be met. Harrias ^talk 16:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are four more similar articles with AfD at the moment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My argument to delete is based entirely on the fact that we can't even tell for sure if S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and this article refer to the same person. If we know so little about the subject that we can't even answer that question, then clearly we don't have enough for an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Davis[edit]

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

Everything here is a mere notice, mostly from obvious press releases and youtube. The only possible basis for notability is the "'Most Influential Women in Business' by the San Francisco Business Times" award for several years, I do not consider it a notable enough award to establish notability on its own. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I honestly found nothing more than this and that's not surprising as her positions are simply board and committee positions. Notifying taggers Smileguy91 and Comatmebro. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per above. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 20:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have far too few women leaders as it is. Keep and improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.100.51 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this because Alison Davis is the most influential women we have in California working on increasing the number of women on boards (Women 2020) and because she is a role model for other women seeking to join major corporate boards. Please help me make this less of a resume, and more of what it is intended to be. But don't delete please. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwolfinden (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because, although Davis clearly has a fan in Mark Calvey at the San Fransisco Business Times, even he is unable to elicit anything more than a list of recent postings to company boards, which he often repeats. Being one of 150 Most Influential Women in Bay Area business is commendable, but doesn't really single out Davis for special consideration. I'm worried that this Wikipedia article does not provide any sources for the personal biographical info and suggests it is written by somebody close to the subject. Sionk (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article get deleted, but this one about John Abdo stays, there's something rotten on Wikipedia! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage is RS to pass GNG or BASIC. As mentioned by Sionk thelack of sourcing for the biographical details is a problem. Jbh ^Talk 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alison Davis is as notable as John Abdo, and since Wikipedia is keeping John Abdo (my best guess is because that article was started by someone who is part of the Wikipedia cabal), I have to in good conscience recommend keep. But then everyone here knows that terms like "notable" is an evasive term that can be used for or against anything at whim! Ah, well, the cabal always wins and the new editor leaves... soured by their experiences here at Wikipedia. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:AGF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OSE is not a valid argument in this instance. And the lament "and the new editor leaves... soured by their experiences here at Wikipedia." is never a valid rationale in these decisions. Each article should be evaluated on its own merits, without concern for puerile decisions of involved editors. Sionk's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The delete !votes generally appeal to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which consensus appears to say doesn't apply as Lynch is (whether he likes it or not) a public figure due to his past career in football. In addition, several keep !votes have found sources to show that there is in-depth coverage of Lynch and his career. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 07:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lynch (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sean Lynch, the article's subject has requested deletion, both on-wiki and via OTRS. While Lynch formally meets the notability criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL, having played in a fully professional league, in-depth coverage is scarce, with sources largely not discussing Lynch in any detail. Among the eight cited references, two are routine game coverage cited for trivia, one is a soccer club website (which isn't reliable by Wikipedia's standards and is 404, too), another is an interview almost exclusively reporting Lynch's words, three are reports on clubs letting players (including Lynch) go which cover Lynch merely as part of a group, and the last one, while reporting on him being hired by a club, also notes how he rarely played. That's a rather poor showing from a WP:GNG point of view. Since Lynch isn't a public figure any more, it could be argued that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Huon (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Delete I've been following Sean's request and its heartfelt, and the article is marginal and poorly sourced enough to be a case of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Whatever his reason for just wanting to disappear, it's of vastly more importance to him than this project. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I saw Sean play in the former Div 2, usually in defeats for my team; wishing him well for the future. As to notability, I see nothing in his past career other than routine coverage, and no reason not to accede to his request (maybe even to reach a snow close?) AllyD (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although they are not used as references in the article, there are several news stories specifically concerning this player, including this and this from the BBC and this from the Daily Record. If you Google Sean Lynch, there are hundreds of football-related links, so it's not as if deleting this article will hide anything. Furthermore, I can't see how WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can possibly apply here, as he clearly isn't a "non-public figure" – he's played several matches in the top division of a fully-professional league, and has also been capped at youth level and was in the squad for the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup (and played in one of the games). He's played several times in front of five-figure crowds, so is a public figure. Number 5 7 10:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the subject has verified his identity to OTRS satisfaction, has properly requested deletion of the article, and is largely non-notable apart from meeting WP:NFOOTY, then I have no problem honoring WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is clearly notable and had a sizeable career, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't really apply - furthermore as Number 57 says it's pointless anyway, there's hundreds of articles about him anyway. Giant Snowman 13:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from having a six year career in which he made well over 100 league appearance, clearly meeting WP:NFOOTY, there a re numerous articles which provide significant detail on the player. In addition to the three listed above, a quick google search throws up these other articles:

Lengthy interview from his time at Airdrie.
This article including quotes from Lynch on his hopes for a contract at St Mirren from a major newspaper.
a short article indicating that as well as his club career he was also capped at junior level for Scotland.

These six articles, plus the level at which the player enjoyed his career indicate both a subject specific and general notability guideline pass. Furthermore, although match reporting is by consensus insufficient coverage to support notability on its own, in addition to the above, there are literally hundreds of match reports available on line in which the exploits of the player are mentioned and which could be used judiciously to provide a more detailed summation of his career. Fenix down (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Had this been someone who was quite frankly unknown and had the article been poorly sourced I probably would've gone with delete but as noted above his career's spanned for 6 years and the sources aren't that bad, I've found a few news sources here [34][35][36][37][38][39][40], and a few book sources here [41][42][43] - Admittingly they're not perfect but notability's certainly there and so at this point I don't think BLPREQUEST or whatever it is applies now. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, plus in addition Sean is featured in any number of computer games, and other media websites. While I agree that wikipedia shouldn't merely be a mirror of other website information, I would find it strange that we would be subject to removal of publicly available information. Koncorde (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you do a Google search, you find many references to his career online, so deleting this article will not significantly reduce his Digital footprint. JMHamo (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability criteria, and reason stated at User talk:Seanlynchpin is "hampering my current search for a new career" but there's nothing in article to suggest that subject would have arrived at that conclusion himself; I'd question motivation of person who suggested the existence of this article would. The only thing I can think of is confusion with another person of same name, but deletion of this article would most likely add to that confusion. Peter James (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the appropriate standard of notability. His own opinion on the matter is irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he says that he doesn't like it, then remove it. He is not a high profile person, the encyclopedia doesn't need this article. Just because we can do something, does not mean that we have to. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't delete articles just because they don't like it, If we followed that request I'd imagine they'd be no articles here!, This is an encyclopedia and his article's encycloepdic and well cited so there's no valid reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IAR. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. I think it would set a dangerous precedent if people can come on and just request deletion for no good reason (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Where do you draw the line in terms of someone requesting deletion? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly meets NFOOTY, and there is plenty of reliable secondary coverage, as shown by Davey2010 and Number57. Also, the !vote of User:MurderByDeadcopy appears to be trying to make a point, which I would strongly advise against. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not cool. Look, we're obviously on different sides but MurderByDeadcopy is in no way engaging in disruptive behaviour by expressing his !vote in this manner. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as see above. Just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Had I spotted the book mentions sooner I would've closed this alot sooner, Meh books & that one source is better than nothing I guess (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salford City Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Well there's no time like the present!, Prev AFD was closed as No Consensus about 10 minutes and as nothing from the last AFD's changed I'm renominating,
Non notable radio station, Can't find anything on this station at all, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, again? Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media. "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios," and for coverage like this, which was rather easily found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal - It was closed as No Consensus with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" so therefore I'm entitled to nominate quickly and well when I want...., BroadcastMedia is an essay not policy and if they were kept per that then all of my AFDs would've been closed per that...., The source is more or less a mention but hey if you can find anything better I'd happily withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OFCOM license, mentioned in media, etc. JMWt (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn in Montreal's points. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arxiloxos - As I said directly above Radio stations aren't ever kept per BroadcastMedia (American stations are but UK ones aren't) and the source provided is pretty poor but if you can find something that can prove the station's actually notable then I'd happily withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point us to a consensus that the usual WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media and WP:BROADCAST standards don't apply in the UK? In my experience the usual criteria (licensed, over-the-air, and content originating) have worked very well to maintain encyclopedic coverage of broadcast outlets while reducing wasted efforts at AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps should've worded that better but I've noticed some US radio stations are kept per BM whereas the UK ones are deleted (It doesn't happen with every US station but it seems to happen with most), I've nominated a ton of these over November and half I've Speedy Kept/Withdrawn and the rest being deleted and apart from this AFD I don't think Broadcast Media was even mentioned in them, To be absolutely honest It seems people believe there is a consensus and others don't so I have no idea if there's an actual consensus or not (I'm going with not as most uk ones have been deleted), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google Books search mentions indicate significance, but not much in terms of reliable sources, however, it looks like there's enough published information for an article. Peter James (talk) 04:17, 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 no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FiLTH[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources found for this musical subgenre. I don't usually do music articles, but as far as I can see musical genres don't fall under WP:NMUSIC. Appears to have been created to bolster the creator's latest attempt to create an article on musician G-Mo Skee (speedied all 4 times}. Fan page for the musician https://g-mo.bandcamp.com/ states that G-Mo Skee invented the genre, and his fans have named it FiLTH. Meters (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 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 merge to UFFA#Activities. czar 14:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Matlaus[edit]

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

Cafe in Norway - fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP. Kelly ^hi! 04:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to UFFA. Geschichte (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect where it is currently mentioned as this is unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 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 01:13, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lakha Lakhwinder Singh[edit]

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

Non notable actor. A single source is provided in the article which doesn't gives any information about this actor. This article should be deleted per WP:N. Musa Talk 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the article has been moved to Lakha Lakhwinder. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 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 04:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to have better insight with this, I'm notifying Indian users AKS.9955, Yash!, Human3015, MichaelQSchmidt and SpacemanSpiff. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has had roles in number of Pnjabi films and TV shows but I doubt if any of those were notable enough. He did make a "Special appearance" in an English film and is going to probably have an important role in an upcoming Hindi film. Hence, there is a possibility that the subject might become notable in future. However, the subject falls short of WP:ENT right now - lack of significant roles in notable projects, no considerable media coverage, no signs of a good fan base, and on not winning any prominent award. Ya sh ! 04:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing found to establish notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree with Yash no signs of notabilty. He had done a number of Punjabi or Hindi movies but mainly as supporting cast. Singh (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Pool System[edit]

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

Nothing to show this meets WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Memory Pool System is a working network of examples which together demonstrate technology knowledge not available elsewhere, shown partially, or very difficult to find in public code bases.

I recommend keeping this article. -Ken Dickey

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as this article has certainly been here long enough where it could've improved but I also found nothing better with searches so draft and userfy is more welcome. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 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. KTC (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nithin Raj[edit]

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

I cannot even find any relevant references for the article, the references used are from YouTube. Some references didn't even any mentions about the name of the article. Josu4u (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better. Notifying past AfC reviewer Zach Vega. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 59.88.205.154 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Spio[edit]

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

BLP with borderline WP:N, fails WP:V, combined with promo only (recent) editors. The Wired source indicates some notability but either WP:TOOSOON and combined with recent promo only editors (one of which has a draft of a previous deleted promo sockfarm). Readers would be better served by WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 13:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promo socks blocked User:Hollenderek User:Botamy007. This article listed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Stuart Styron Widefox; talk 00:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. possibly speedy. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kings And Comrades[edit]

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

Reference #1: Authorless "JamBase" article, looks like it is probably a kind of press release Reference #2: LastFM, "Artist descriptions on Last.fm are editable by everyone."— band bio probably written by one of its members Reference #3: ReverbNation, only a track listing and short self-written bio Reference #4: Jambase again, here the band is mentioned only trivially in a lineup with a lot of other bands.

None of these references meet the criteria of being non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. If this is the best that the author(s) can come up with, then this band, which has no record label, fails to meet the guidelines at WP:NBAND as well as the requirements of WP:GNG. Also likely to apply here: WP:GARAGE. KDS4444^Talk 14:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea where to comment this, since I'm European and not used to the English lang. version of Wikipedia and all boxes and places to discuss you use. I want to state following.

1) I, who created the article on Wikipedia about Kings and Comrades, am not a band member, have no connections to them and has never met them. I have never been to America. I was listening to them on Spotify and wanted to read about them and could hardly find anything on Internet. The little I found, I cleaned from advertising and band promotion, and what's left is only facts about the band and therefore an encyclopedic text. It's free from band promotion. Many articles about other bands on Wikipedia sounds like homages and adorations, but not this article.

2) Sanmare, who wrote the biography about Kings and Comrades on LastFM, has the same status: doesn't know the band, is not American, has never met or talked to any band members. He is from Sweden, a country quite far away from USA and Philadelphia, where the Kings and Comrades are based. Can't this be proved by checking the IP or something? I'm no computer expert.

3) Yes, the sources are poor and I wish there where better ones, and better sources may show up in the future. Most info is on the band's own Facebook page, and that source has been avoided. I have tried to only leave the facts about the band. Article is encyclopedic and not promotion. The band exists, the band has the named members and has made the mentioned albums and songs, they can be played on Spotify, YouTube and other places, and the band participated in the mentioned concerts. So the article should not be erased from Wikipedia. Have a great day, --Caspiax 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspiax (talk • contribs)

Delete - There's no obviously better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 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 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches of the usual types produced some reviews ([44], [45], [46], [47]) in sources that are neither on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources recommended sources list nor on their sources to avoid list. Like JamBase and ReverbNation, however, they do not exhibit the characteristics of reliable sources. Arguably the best of the bunch is the review in The Pier, which, for example is by a recent marketing graduate who works for a music venue and for Skunk Records and writes that he "wrote reviews and got into shows for free, a perfect trade-off." Further searches of the Philadelphia papers, reggaereport.com, and www.roots-archives.com turned up nothing more than gig listings. Therefore does not meet WP:BAND. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Ladki Badnaam Si[edit]

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

How is this unreleased film notable? Sources (including those mentioned on talk page are very much not good enough. TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

and with WP:INDAFD: "Ek Ladki Badnaam Si" "Desh Gautam" "Rehana Sultan"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hordley Acres[edit]

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

Article fails to cite sources mentioning Hordley Acres; I also can't find any. TheGGoose (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly a hoax. Snappy (talk) 18:08, 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 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources provided, none found in searches. Might be a hoax but in any case no notability has been established. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I first saw this when it was nominated but waited....my searches found nothing at all even to suggest minimal acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gain (information retrieval)[edit]

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

What this article describes is nothing more than "relative improvement over chance", an idea which is not specific to information retrieval (nor even to computer science) and which is probably not complex enough to warrant its own article. In fact, it's sufficiently trivial or obvious that it doesn't seem to be covered in the surveys and introductory books I've consulted (such as Manning et al.'s Introduction to Information Retrieval). To the extent that there is any material here worth salvaging, it would be better placed in precision and recall. Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this article is true, except that gain is not necessarily defined in comparison to a random baseline and is not specific to classifiers even in IR. But the concept of gain is not in the glossary from Modern Information Retrieval either, nor in the index of my 1999 edition, nor can I find a research paper that makes a point of defining it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 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 01:08, 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Coughlan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC and parked entirely on primary (sales profiles on iTunes, his own Google+ profile) and unreliable (YouTube videos, blogs) sources. The closest thing here to a valid source is an interview in the Yorkshire Times — but it's a longstanding principle of AFD that because they represent the subject talking about himself, and are thus subject to the same problems as a primary source public relations profile, an interview cannot count toward the meeting of GNG and may only be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can ever be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local musician not even satisfying general notability guidelines, no better notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock This Bitch[edit]

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

Non-notable song. There isn't even a good target redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Grace[edit]

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC — as written, the article just asserts that she exists, and parks on WP:GNG-ineligible sources like interviews and blogs rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON — she might potentially qualify for an article in the future if and when she's done more and garnered more real media coverage for it than this, but nothing here gets her an article today. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if and when her notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:NMUSIC. clpo13_(talk) 21:06, 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 01:07, 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 merge to Tocks Island Dam controversy. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tocks Island[edit]

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

No references, no notable content, seems to fail WP:GNG -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tocks Island Dam controversy. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge from Tocks Island Dam controversy The dam was never built and the controversy relates directly to the island, rather than vice versa. Alansohn (talk) 23:59, 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 03:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tocks Island Dam controversy. I can't find much out there (other than passing mentions) that isn't connected to the controversy. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombings in Mogadishu[edit]

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

This article loosely stitches together a few wikipedia articles about events in one of the most dangerous cities on earth. I can't see how the lead two sentences add to anyone's understanding of the violence in that city, making this basically a dab page with summaries. It's like having an article on shootings in LA Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure the point of this list or why it begins in 2008 —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it might seem like a glorified disambiguation page, but if that's what it is, it serves a purpose. You make it sound like it's a huge list with endless events, but it's not. If you think it should be trimmed out to a disambiguation page without summaries, that can be debated without any need for deletion. LjL (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this article [48] says "As well as attacking troops, the group (Al-Shabab) frequently carries out bombings and gun attacks on officials at bureaus, hotels or restaurants." This list is far from complete Stringing all bombings in the city together is WP:SYNTH. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SAL is not WP:SYNTH per se, no. LjL (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One issue with this is that it isn't chronologically limited, and different people have been blowing things up in Mogadishu for decades. If it is about bombins by one faction, say so. If it is a list, make it List of bombings in Mogadishu (2008-present) if that is what's intended. I have no issue with its retention, but its scope needs to be far better defined in the title and lead. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:07, 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 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is definitely improper synthesis as it stands, pulling together different bomb attacks in Mogadishu since 2008 without any indication that this is a coherent topic. I did consider if it could be turned into a cut-down list and extended back pre-2008, but I'm not sure why we would separate bombings from other attacks, we already have the comprehensive Timeline of Al-Shabaab related events (nearly all post-2008 bombings in Mogadishu are by Al-Shabaab), and navigating bombings in Mogadishu seems like something the category system could handle better. Fences&Windows 09:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather pointless. If the series had received coverage as a series, that would be different; but this is just a glorified category/DAB page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FrontPageIt[edit]

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

I'm suggesting this article for deletion because it fails the notability criteria. FrontPage.it is a very new application with version 1.0 only having been released on iTunes on July 30 2015. When you log into their application you see that their most popular category (viral videos) has only 1.200 followers, the second most popular (technology) having only 165 followers. FrontPage.It might be a great product - I don't know - but at this stage it is not a notable product. I also feel that, while it has been reviewed on a number of technology focused websites, it fails to show that there is significant coverage of the product. The reviews basically say "here is cool new product you should check out" - which is different from being a notable product. I originally suggested this article for deletion through he "proposed deletion" tag, but the author disagreed - see talk page. In his response the author indicated that he expects the product to become more notable in the coming months, but in my opinion that is not good enough since subjects should already be notable when added to Wikipedia. On the plus side, the author quickly fixed issues related to puffery. Timoluege (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page because it is already notable. I said it will become even more notable as time will pass. When a product has full reviews not just mentions in credible websites it means it is notable. There are many articles on wikipeida with 5 references. I have used 14. I used this service and it made me think it should have a wikipedia article. So article is notable what you should focus is if you object to any neutrality so that it may be written right. --Skh38 (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy for now as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and do not userify or move to draft. The refs are all of them unusable for notability--even more so than usual in this tuype of article. The Huffington Post ref is copied from the firms web page, and says so. (I've been having my doubts about the use of that publication to show notability even when it doesn't blatantly reprint an advertisement to look like an article --it seems to be an easy mark for spammers and press agents--they merely have to convince one of their columnists). The Forbes article is not about the product, and just includes a quote from the firm's ceo as one sentence in a very general article.' it literally says nothing at all about the product--not even what it does. Social media today has a short mention among many other products; tech.co is again a brief part in an article about miscellaneous products. techjournal is at least about the product, but it reads like an advertisement--an advertisement filled with puffery from beginning to end. Etc., etc. The article was made using tricks to avoid New Page Patrol: U:Skh38 replaced a good redirect from "FrontPage" to Microsoft Front Page by the first version of this article, and then moved it from FrontPage to FrontPageIt. This is a manner of creation which makes me wonder about "I used the service..." as an explanation for why a spa created an article. It's difficult to think it in good faith, and just in case it applies I remind the spa about our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I independently came to the same conclusion then saw his comments - he says it better than I was going it. This is promotional and most of the coverage is in passing and cribbed from a press release. The Tech Journal piece is the only real coverage and even that is not great. The redirect of FrontPage to Microsoft Front Page will need replacing. Fences&Windows 09:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. The coverage that exists seems to be directly copied or referenced from primary or original sources, which does not meet the criterion required to establish them as reliable. There is one source that I count as reliable, but it does not constitute significant coverage, which is required in order to meet WP:GNG and assert notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:05, 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. joe decker ^talk 02:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine Arrington[edit]

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

The subject of the article seems to be a truly admirable young woman doing her bit to improve the lot of others. However, I struggled to find anything in the refs which conferred the sort of notability that Wikipedia needs. The awards are all very local. I don't believe this meets WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is so sad that within about 5 minutes of this article going up, it is already on the chopping block. Yes, she is an admirable young woman, who started a very important organization while still in high school. She has also distinguished herself academically and in her career, and I believe this is just the beginning for her, and her achievements and recognition will grow. As far as only being mentioned in local sources, she was in Huffington Post, The Washington Times (that is Washington, DC, a reputable, well-read newspaper,) and several other moderately read sources. I found out about Arrington perusing the list of requested articles here in wikipedia, and I worked hard on it because I was convinced that she is notable and deserves recognition here in wikipedia. She is a role model for others, and is exactly the kind of person Wikipedia was created for. No she is not a superstar yet, but she is of interest, and interesting. I beg other editors to look for more information on her on-line, and add it here. It would be a real pity if this article was deleted.Granolalover (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granolalover, would you be interested in taking the article to Articles for Creation where you will get more time to work on it? Starting new articles in "main space" means risking quick deletion. I see some problems with the article that might be fixable. If so, I'll vote "userfy". LaMona (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be content with moving this into draft under AfC to see if there is something more in the way of notability that can be established. My suspicion is that there isn't more but I would be happy to see if it can be developed "off line". Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to wait and see how the votes go, and if it is voted for deletion, I would obviously prefer the article go back to the drawing board on the "articles for creation" space and try and improve it. Please advise me on what some of the problems you saw with this article that could indeed be fixed.Granolalover (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real problem if you wait for deletion as it will disappear totally so you would need a locally saved copy to reconstruct a new article in Draft space. Better to move this version to draft and it will safe to work on for a while. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every community in America has people like this, creating admirable organizations and getting local awards and recognition. Should they all have wikipages? Not sure what makes this person more worthy than any of the others. Nor should wikipedia be a place to bestow notability on subjects for their potential in life. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe she is such a "localized" phenomenon and my proof is that Huffington Post felt she was worth space, and the Washington Times, a nationally read newspaper, wrote about her.Granolalover (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that there are dozens and dozens of articles that I have seen on Wikipedia which are about much less interesting or notable people, with considerably fewer supporting references, which do not get tagged IMMEDIATELY for deletion. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Why not leave the article up and add to it as she continues to gain in notability. If she does not, there is always the delete process in the future. Granolalover (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to coverage in the article, she has been covered by BET's Black Girls Rock show, Essence, TeenVogue, emPower. The coverage spans several years so wasn't just one news cycle or a flash-in-the-pan. Fences&Windows 01:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources here. In-depth coverage here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tweeple Film Awards[edit]

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

Probably just a 2011 phenomenon that died afterwards. The awards have to be notable to stay on Wikipedia by at least being consistently given. They also have to be considered notable enough by third part sources. All sources found on net talk about the newness of awarding style but nothing about the notability as such. Also, the article has no links to any enwiki articles. We have plenty of articles covering Bollywood stuff and still no editor has so far considered it worth to mention this award in any biography/film/award-lists articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

and WP:INDAFD: "Tweeple Film Awards" "Tweeple Awards" "Tweeples" "twi-fi awards"

Keep per topic meeting WP:GNG. In reading WP:NTEMP we accept that happening in the past does not make something non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a one-time Twitter poll —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion of Mount Saint Helens happened just once too. Does that men we can ignore all the press about it? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two thing: (i) An award in Bollywood genre should be supposed to be annual and if it lasted only one year, its notability is doubtful. So even if TEMP things are notable, recurring events shouldn't be temporary by definition. (ii) Also, as stated before, non of the third party references aren't counting this as a "notable award". Apart from the press releases, many of which are interviews of the founder, there isn't much lasting effect here. The Bollywood community on en-wiki itself is vastly active and we have plenty GAs/FAs/FLs and none seem to be mentioning this award anywhere. Apart from well meaning editors, this genre of articles is also infested by socks and PRs and still has no mention anywhere; implying no one treats it notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable one-shot Twitter poll per Dharmahyksha's great explanation. Nate • (chatter) 04:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One time wonder with no such great event notability in the past. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indranil Sen[edit]

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

BLP which has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 05:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 05:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply see nothing better unless better sources can actually be found. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 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. KTC (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. there's no inherent notability for embassies and no bilateral article to redirect to. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't do embassy articles unless there is something exceptional about them. Legacypac (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No inherent notability for an embassy, and no sources to create an article with. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:12, 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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Rooms[edit]

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

The company certainly has many reliable references however company fails to expresses an identity. It is too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company. Ireneshih (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as although there's a plethora of links, there's nothing for solidly better notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. at the present time this is essentially advertising. Probably an article could be written, but the first step is to remove this one. Ican;t prove it's written by an undeclared paid editor, but it certainly looks as if it is. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Chiu[edit]

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

Minor TV producer, now producing two lifestyle shows. No visible notability. Inadequate sources DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete as I actually speedied this but it was removed and my comments are exactly the same, searches found nothing better at all so there's no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - for two reasons. Firstly, because of the referenced Langley Advance article [55], an independent reliable source, which when combined with the less-substantial Georgia Straight article [56] and a little benefit-of-the-doubt, just about meets WP:GNG. Secondly, because in my opinion a television presenter (note, not producer) who is known and recognizable to potentially millions of people (the Greater Vancouver area, with a population of around three million) is notable. Thparkth (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What wiki-guideline does this nomination rely on?Ottawahitech (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Being a media personality who is associated with local media markets, rather than a national platform, can be enough of a claim of notability if the article is sourced well enough to fulfill WP:GNG — but it does not constitute an automatic inclusion freebie for an unsourced or poorly-sourced article. Smalltown community weekly newspapers are a class of sourcing that we deprecate as being unable to contribute to GNG, because they're not widely distributed (or widely archived, so that the content would remain verifiable even if the website ever disappeared), so the Langley Advance contributes nothing here. Metropolitan alt-weeklies do count for more, since they are archived in major public library systems like the VPL, but the Georgia Straight reference is a blurb and thus cannot pass GNG as the article's only legitimate source. And I just did a ProQuest search to see if any daily newspaper coverage could be added, but she garners just 14 namechecks, and no substantive coverage, in that database too — and if even the Vancouver Sun and The Province (the gold-standard sources for Vancouver-related topics) never covered her in any substantive way, then there's no real chance of meeting GNG at all unless very maybe something changes in the future. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Herbert (karate champion)[edit]

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

Non-notable karate practitioner. Does not meet either WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside of a few interviews, there is nothing to show significant coverage in reliable sources. I also cannot locate any championships he won.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't give and I couldn't find any sources to support the claim he's an international karate champion. Most of the article is about his ranks and the school he teaches at. Those don't show notability nor does giving seminars. Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranya Rao[edit]

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

1 supporting role, 2 roles in films not yet released. I do not consider this even a claim to notability , but the CSD was declined. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current information which cites 3 films is not suggesting better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping for better insight with this, I'm notifying Indian users Yash!, Human3015, SpacemanSpiff, AKS.9955 and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree that she hasn't acted in many features, she seems to have received good enough coverage - [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. Her performance in her debut film also received good reception - [62] [63] [64]. Apart from these sources, her upcoming film, in which she has the lead role, is apparently a big deal in the Tamil cinema. Online coverage of South Indian cinema is generally pretty scarse and having received coverage from various notable sources, this satisfies WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Ya sh ! 05:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yash! extremely useful post. Thanks! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 06:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. It's ok that she got press coverage but lets not forget the basics (following) of NACTOR.

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

She does not qualify for any of the above three criteria. We should not get excited by just seeing mention in a newspapers; these days few drinks in a nice bar buys people an article in leading daily newspapers in India. WP:TOOSOON. Thanks for the ping SwisterTwister. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability of any subject, it does not necessarily have to meet WP:NACTOR as long as it meets WP:BASIC. BASIC states: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below (including NACTOR). The comments about getting article into leading newspapers over a few drinks is purely subjective and your personal point of view. Ya sh ! 10:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG as shown by Yash. --Human3015^TALK 11:19, 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 merge to Home Movies (TV series). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retroscripting[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Judging by a Google News archive search, the term has only been used by the creators of Home Movies in reference to that show. None of the sources cited in the article prior to 9 November use any form of the word except for one, and that one links the word back to our article, which at the time was a completely unsourced stub. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - completing this nomination for an IP-user, as requested at WT:AfD, no opinion on the topic myself. GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I’ve dramatically edited the article since requesting the AFD nom. Here is the version before my edits: [65]. It was full of unsupported claims and unrelated sources, so I basically started over. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Home Movies (TV series). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nom, but correct to Home Movies (TV series). I don’t think there’s anything to merge, though; the target article already describes this subject. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, I recommend delete without redirect. I don’t see any reason for the redirect (I don’t believe anyone would look up a TV show via an obscure term internally used to describe its development); and the article has no unique content, and was previously full of unverified claims and original research, so there’s nothing to merge. @Shawn in Montreal: Am I wrong? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 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 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, is the thinking. But YMMV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Improvisational theatre#In film and television. This appears to me to be one person's pet term for something known more generally by a different term. --Rob Kelk 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was thinking of closing this as "redirect," but on second thoughts this is not a plausible search term; so unless the target of the redirect is updated with this information, deleting is more appropriate, because no substantive coverage exists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Home Movies (TV series) as stated by Shawn in Montreal. Vincent60030 (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - No harm in leaving the redirect as long as the info is merged into the parent article. Definitely doesn't merit a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The term appears to be specifically associated with Home Movies rather than being a general term for improv. Redirects are cheap, so no need to delete after merging the information. clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename. The consensus is to keep and rename the article to Index of nursing articles per precedent and WP:NOTDUP. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 07:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nursing articles[edit]

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

Pointless, and nearly empty, rehash of Category:Nursing Bazj (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm voting to delete because, as the nominator said, this is something better handled by a category and does not belong in the article space. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- KTC (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. A list could be constructed, but this isn't it. This is a weird mishmash of links for the most part unrelated specifically to nursing; one's a training programme for doctors, another's for CPR, which isn't restricted to nurses. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that it's somewhat better. I've added and deleted (bed-wetting?) some entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is what categories are for. Fails notability and list guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Index of nursing articles. This is an established type of Wikipedia page. See Category:Indexes of topics for other examples. That it isn't complete isn't reason for deletion. I'll also note that per WP:NOTDUP categories and lists are not in competition with one another such that the existence or potential for one justifies deleting the other. However, this isn't an appropriate list in the traditional encyclopedic sense so shouldn't be named as such -- it's a navigational aid like the rest of those indexes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added the articles from Category:Nursing to get it started. Ideally this would be organized or even eventually moved to Outline of nursing, but for now it's just an index of articles which still needs the subcategories of nursing and other categories. @Clarityfiend, Bazj, and FuriouslySerene: Given it's no longer a tiny, incomplete list and with the precedent visible in Category:Indexes of topics would you reconsider your delete !vote? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to update it each time an article is added to the category, or should we rename it List of Nursing Articles as of 28 November 2015? I commend your effort but think it was misplaced. Bazj (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

???? Let's not be silly. Shall we also rename every article about a subject that might need updating at some point (i.e. every article)? Certainly every non-exhaustive list on Wikipedia would need that sort of renaming -- in some cases, on a daily basis. It sounds like your issue is with the index format of article, not with this particular one, but don't use AfD as a mechanism to make that point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thanks for pointing out that essay, but I have some quibbles with that. First, WP:NOTESAL is policy and I believe takes precedence. How does this list or index meet the notability guidelines? Because it's a list/index of wiki articles, there won't be any significant coverage of the topic (coverage may be of the topics of those articles, but certainly not of the WP articles themselves, which is what counts here). Also WP:NOTCATALOG: articles shouldn't be "Simple listings without context information." I don't believe there are independent sources that list all of the topics, or attempt to list these topics, together. Personally, I don't agree with that essay. I don't see what the point is having categories if we'll just also create lists of those articles as well without any context, organization or any other additions. Also note that many of the advantages listed in the essay for "lists" don't apply to this article - e.g., "can include items that are not linked." Since this is only a list of topics that are already covered by WP, nothing can be added, nor can any context be given. Happy to hear your response on this though. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FuriouslySerene: (and others) - WP:NOTDUP is not an essay. It's a guideline, which means there is broad consensus that it's how things should be done in general. For the purpose of AfD, policies and guidelines are what determine the outcome (and, in fact, more often guidelines that policies since guidelines are more specific when it comes to procedures and standards rather than broad principles). Also, WP:NOTESAL is not a policy, but another guideline. But NOTESAL also doesn't conflict with NOTDUP. NOTESAL says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set" (emphasis mine). The guideline for stand-alone lists is clearer (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists). See under "Specialized list articles" it gives:

Indices, alphabetized lists of articles on a given subject, are part of Wikipedia's Contents navigation system, and are listed at Portal:Contents/Indices. Examples include Index of psychology articles and Index of Syria-related articles. For more information, see index (publishing), and WikiProject Indexes.

So you can disagree, but the place for that disagreement is on the talk pages for those guidelines. Disagreeing with them here amounts to saying "it should be deleted because WP:IAR". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Index of nursing articles, per Rhododendrites. Also keep per WP:HEY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Rhododendrites' analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aesthetic Contract[edit]

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

nonremarkable book, no refs provided. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination--Musa Talk 06:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've managed to find some academic reviews through my old school's database. They all appear to be from usable outlets and the only one of them (SubStance) without an article is published through the University of Wisconsin Press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is also mentioned somewhat extensively in this journal article as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

four of the cited reviews are behind academic firewalls, but im not sure of wp:notability on such refs. one is not behind a firewall, and is from a notable journal. im neutral now on deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurywoodrose, I can send you the content from some of the firewalls, but you'd need to enable your email. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also went and replaced them with general links to the articles in Muse and JSTOR. You'd still need an account to view them in their entirety, but you can still view part of them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current set of references seems to amply satisfy criterion 1 at WP:BKCRIT: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works" in independent sources; the criterion explicitly states that "published works" includes reviews. I'm not able to access the full text of the reviews in the references, but what I can read, together with the page counts, suggests that the book's discussed in non-trivial detail. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:54, 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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaymlusly Elliterate[edit]

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

The same reasons given in the deletion discussion for the artist "Elliterate" apply here: sources are either local, lack independence, are trivial mentions, or do not discuss the subject of the article. KDS4444^Talk 07:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator, and I didn't find any reliable sources when I searched. Not notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:07, 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. KTC (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samyam Puri[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage at Google News or Google Books. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article was successfully prodded and deleted back in September, see here. Was re-created and subsequently put up for speedy deletion in November, a tag which the article creator removed. With the dearth of info on this person, I would have thought it might be a hoax, but did find a couple of brief mentions. So he exists, he's a very minor actor, clearly not notable, nor does he meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Onel5969 - No evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 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 merge to Leisure Suit Larry#Unreleased games. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure Suit Larry 4: The Missing Floppies[edit]

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

Non notable video game that was never made. Koala15 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Represents the reason the numbering of the made episodes goes straight from 3 to 5 and that it's not Wikipedia's original idea to number them as such. Here's an important statement in the article: The franchise's installments, however, continue to be numbered as if this installment had been published. (The actual fourth installment of the franchise was its next, Leisure Suit Larry 5: Passionate Patti Does a Little Undercover Work.)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Leisure Suit Larry#Unreleased games, which mentions other unreleased games in the series. This is not independently notable, it is really an in-joke for the series. The context will need a serious trim as the content includes a lot of fan trivia and is largely poorly sourced. Fences&Windows 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to keep this article quite badly, but unfortunately I'm not really finding anything to show that it would merit an article. Most of the coverage for this is fairly minor, as it's comprised mostly of tongue in cheek references like this source where they claim that they'll talk about the unmade game... but never do. That's because the game is pretty much an extremely long running joke where they continually claim that the discs are "missing" and almost no details are given out about what the plot of the faux game would have been - something that's played up for laughs in LL5. We do get things like this where they say that it was deliberately skipped, but by large the coverage for this is always in passing. I'll try to see what I can find, but so far the sourcing is predominantly trivial. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there have been some primary sources given that go into more depth, but the problem there is that they're primary and we can't really use them for sourcing. If we had one really good in-depth, notability-giving source that covered the fourth game specifically then it could probably be different. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per above. I wish we could keep this, but by large the only places that have discussed this to any depth are primary and we can't use those to show notability. As said above, this is a very long running joke with Al Lowe and Sierra, as they reference it frequently in the LLL games and in other Sierra fare. Occasionally you'll get other places that mention it like the ones mentioned in the article, but those are pretty few and far between - and I'm not sure that gag bits in Mad and Abandonia.com are really the type of thing that would count towards notability on here. If anyone can find a good argument towards keeping then I'm open, but it'd have to be pretty solid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per F&W and Tokyogirl79. De Guerre (talk) 23:23, 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 both. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mawson Lakes Soccer Club[edit]

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

Amateur soccer club, playing in the 4th division of a fully amateur competition. Doesn't come close to passing notability guidelines. A second club (Pontian Eagles Soccer Club) is nominated for the same reason. - J man708 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search for ("mawson lakes soccer club") turned up no independent in-depth coverage. Searching Google News and Google News Archives for the same phrase yielded zero hits. Widening the Google News searches to ("mawson lakes" soccer club) produced nothing that'd tend to establish notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I am !voting to delete Mawson Lakes Soccer Club; I haven't looked into Pontian Eagles Soccer Club, and question whether it should be included in this AfD, since it might well be the case that one's notable and the other isn't. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CLUB. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CLUB. Simione001 (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4th division amateur has no notability. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW DELETE' as there's simply convincingly better improvement so WP:TNT is better is ever available. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CLUB and WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - fails WP:CLUB and WP:FOOTYN –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail WP:GNG. Both have a few mentions in local papers in Adelaide - according to Factiva and Ebsco Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre - but not sufficient to be considered significant coverage. Hack (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/cool-cat-saves-the-kids

[1]