Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 November	4 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of current champions in Lucha Underground[edit]

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

Pointless duplication of material forked from Lucha Underground, redundant. Fiddle Faddle 23:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. There is very little that is not contained in the main article and if you removed that information from the main article the result would too small of a main article.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough citations that contribute to the article and more citations have been added, so there is no need of removing it. If you don't believe me take a look at the article yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Not enough actual content for a standalone article at this point. Scr★pIron^IV 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This entire article is already contained in the Lucha Underground article. Is there a reason not to redirect this article there? Also, this looks like an article more than a list. If kept as a separate article, it might be better to rename it. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with as few entries as this, the info can easily be contained within the parent article (where it is already to be found) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information to justify a standalone article. JCO312 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per arguments above. Simply not enough for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 01:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aptronym[edit]

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

I used to like this article, but I now realize that it's excessive and hard to maintain. Most Books and Scholar search results I've found are simply a definition of the term or "there's a word for that" trivia, with little reliable, serious discussion on the concept. Relies rather heavily on original research with regard to determining whether a name is worth listing, and the list of "examples" is long, crufty, and unnecessary. There has been a tag to merge to Nominative determinism since February, with several fruitless discussions on Talk:Nominative determinism from years ago, and the two articles do heavily overlap in scope while neither of them has much useful content. Since there hasn't been any discussion on Talk:Aptronym about this, I'm proposing that this merge be carried out to salvage what little can be salvaged from Aptronym and delete it. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC) (Adding here because it basically is a list)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nominative Determinism, per nominator. Basically just a list of original research. fish&karate 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "aptronyms" have a different and independent history from Nominative Determinism, as evidenced by the article. The term was coined and collected separately in more commercial and direct publications, than academic texts with the off-putting more "scientific" name of Nominative Determination. It would seem to me, one is an amusing observation and the other is a silly theory. Not exactly the same thing, even if about the same observed phenomenon. JesseRafe (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JesseRafe. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on improving citations. KConWiki (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Songstress (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singles from The Songstress by Anita Baker[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)

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

These songs from Anita Baker's album, The Songstress, are neither notable nor independent of the album nor of the singer. Even when the songs were charted in just one chart, I've already copied and pasted content into the album page, or content is already present there. Merger is not necessary at the moment. They failed to be widely significant per WP:NSONGS and WP:N, even when the songs were fabulous and amazing. I searched all over and found very little discussion on them. By the way, pre-AFD deletion was proposed, but someone unregistered removed the tags without a proper reason. In fact, the person's behaviour has been discussed not just there but elsewhere. George Ho (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to The Songstress. The only thing of note are the charts positions which are listed and sourced in the album article. Standalone articles are not warranted here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The Songstress, per above. It's more helpful to the reader to remove these itty-bitty content forks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro and Edro Get Grounded: The Sequel[edit]

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

Unclear notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero notability per WP:GNG and WP:WEB. It's apparently one of a series of YouTube videos made using GoAnimate but there are no independent, reliable sources to suggest it's notable. clpo13_(talk) 21:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons given above by Clpo13. No reliable sources found to indicate notability. There's a mention on the GoAnimate wiki and a few ghits for this video and other videos in the series on video hosting sites, but that's it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just nothing out there to show that this is ultimately notable enough for an article. It's one of several thousand videos that average Janes and Joes create using this program. Basically, this is about the equivalent of someone filming something at home and uploading it to YouTube. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could probably have been a Speedy Delete though whoever blanked the page wasn't helping. JCO312 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ligature Design Symposium[edit]

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

non notable student-run symposium " entirely run and organized by upper-division Graphic Design students and Alina Shafii in UF's graphic design club, VOXgraphis.". Among the people they invited as guests, all of whom are apparently listed, a few of them are notable. Having a notable person speak does not make a symposium notable, or DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the closest articles or simply delete as I found nothing better and this has existed since 2007 so there was certainly time for improvements. Pinging speedy remover Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I declined the speedy delete because of the notable people in the list. But we should check for more suitable references before giving this the chop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After checking for web, news or academic journals, I find nothing that is independent of the symposium. So this fails WP:GNG. May as well delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and Graeme Bartlett. Nothing in the search engines revealed enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deni Hoxha[edit]

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

I have been informed that this is not an accurate article, and I must say that I can't find much in support of it. There is a Deni Hoxha currently around who was the subject of earlier deleted articles under this title, and it may be that this is connected. Anyone with access to the sole source in the article, please check it. Peridon (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned among the signatories at Albanian Declaration of Independence, and no evidence from online searches that such a person exists. I would say that it's a possible hoax. ansh 666 23:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find anything, either. Seems to be missing from English and Albanian articles on Albanian Declaration of Independence and their sources. Happy to look again if reliable sources can be found, but this does look like a hoax. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Simpson[edit]

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

Twice declined speedy delete. No reliable sources have been provided, and my own searches turned up nothing better. Even ignoring the major issues with the page, it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as non-notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I actually planned to nominate when I first saw it tagged and there's simply nothing to insinuate better here. Pinging past users Ritchie333 and Lantay77. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable for a standalone article. At the very best would qualify for a passing mention in one of our quackery or cannabis (drug) articles, maybe. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from it's NPOV problems, there's an obvious lack of notablity to justify a standalone article.JCO312 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picnic (1966 film)[edit]

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

Article about a film. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am seeing this film mentioned briefly here and there in Google Books search results. Since this film is older, non-English, and not of high notability, we may need to depend on published sources for this film, rather than online ones. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this film's notability is established by offline sources, then the contributor can add those sources, either now or in a better-sourced re-iteration of the article later. David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a need to rush to delete. This was just nominated today, and we should allot time for sources to be found, either by the article creator or others who may know where to look. That's why I only commented instead of taking a stance at this point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I simply see no obvious better improvement. Pinging SpacemanSpiff, Dharmadhyaksha, Human3015, Sanskari, Sitush MichaelQSchmidt, Yash!, AKS.9955 and AusLondonder. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I am keen in knowing more about this movie, unfortunately this still needs to go since there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

title and year only:(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)

WP:INDAFD: "Picnic (1966)" "Shaheed Latif"

Comment: Thanks for the ping. Appears that this is yet another pre-internet Indian film with multiple Indian notables which has nade it into the enduring record of books but does not have (the strangely expected) enduring newspaper coverage 40 years after it was first released. My searches find a few sources for verification, but nothing substantial archived anywhere. Perhaps there are Indian Wikipedians with copies of 40-year-old Indian newspapers stashed away? Working now to improve the stub contributed minutes before being nominated. I hope the new author/contributor will not take offense and be chased away by the quick rejection of his contribution. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any reliable source online to constitute notability. In most cases, if the film was a significant one, we would find something interesting mentioned in Google books search results or at some articles on the old cinema. I am hardly able to find little mentions of the film which isn't enough. There might be some notable facts about the film published in offline sources back then and if the facts had been really notable, we would find at least some glimpse of it online. Since this film was released in 1966, even if this were a notable one, I doubt if we would be able to prove that. It's a tough task to find offline sources for topics that were even moderately notable 50 years ago. Though the film might have been in the talks enough to meet WP:NFILM, it will take time to find sources to prove that. We could move it to AfC perhaps where the article could be shaped better. Right now, it doesn't meet NFILM. Yash! 08:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now: Such films are maybe notable at that time but some old films are lost in history so we don't get sources for them in today's era. But if anyone finds more reliable sources (maybe offline or any encyclopedia of Indian films) then this article should be recreated. --Human3015^TALK 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)del[reply]
Inclined to Keep given the improbability of finding any coverage of such a film by our usual internet-only look for sources. This is producing WP:RECENTISM in this area. Nobody disputes the film was made and released, and it is unlikely that adequate sources such as reviews don't in fact exist. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Two hours after being created and then nominated. There won't be many sources for a film from 1966. Filpro (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles does not meets the WP:GNG nor it can be improved further due to lack of WP:RS. — Sanskari ^Hangout 08:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - The article has a lots of real infos collecting data from reliable websites. You can't expect more informations about a 1966 film at the Internet. I think this is a amazing article. thinking of deleting this is a bull shit. Keep This. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azad71 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 October 2015‎
Keep Thanks for the ping User:SwisterTwister. I've done some searches on the film. A few sources can be found, but of course internet sources will be harder to find for a 1966 Indian film. I invoke WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in these circumstances. Article has been improved since nomination AusLondonder (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to delete but relist to give more time for stone age sources to be found. Perhaps a trip to an indian library might solve this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article does not appear to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YDreams[edit]

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

I'm simply not sure if this can be kept and improved as the best links I found were this, this, this and this and the article would certainly need to be improved if kept (the Portuguese Wiki is somewhat more detailed but is also much unsourced) and this has basically stayed the same since starting in November 2007. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. 2 of the top 3 hits are WP pages and other is the official website.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward a Weak Keep. Found several decent articles (or what appear to be) on News: this, this, this, this (short, but nice), and this. I don't read Portugese, and didn't have the time to put them all through translate, but they appear to be in-depth articles which aren't press releases from reliable sources. I stopped after News, for I felt that was enough to show WP:GNG. If someone with better Portugese than I (which isn't hard), comes along and lets me know never to comment on Portugese articles, I'm fine with that . Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the four portuguese language news reports are about how YDreams is *not* going bankrupt, after a special plan was approved on court by creditors. One highlight that it has very good ideas (which you can read about in the english language news report) but it had difficulties turning it into products (and sal€s). Neutral. - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No specific reason given for deletion but for good measure here are a couple more sources: [1][2]. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is only one source... (and a copy? from a few days later) - Nabla (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Anyone can boldly merge the 2015 Crescent Cup article into the Crescent Cup article. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 01:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable Rugby tournament, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Keep notable competition recognized by the World Rugby Union (official website of the Crescent Cup) and the Islamic Solidarity Sports Federation. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These are some exemples of independent topics : The Guardian, BBC, France 24. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brawl does not make this tournament notable; that's just one incident that was picked up by the press. We need significant coverage about the tournament itself. JMHamo (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the website of France 24, Radio Algérienne, we can see that it's an official competition in both links. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is France 24 in english. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep parent article Crescent Cup, and Merge the 2015 Crescent Cup into the parent article. Bob247 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This AfD is a disaster. No prejudice toward a quick renomination with input from additional experienced editors/relevant WikiProjects. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another look, it seems that not much has changed since the previous AfD and subsequent DRV both yielded a consensus to delete the article. I normally don't like to delete pages on CSD G4 premises after full (and extended) deletion discussions, but given that the page was reinstated by a now-blocked sock, I'm deleting this once again. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dilemma of determinism[edit]

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

Previous AFD determined that it should be deleted. No substantial changes have been made and the original reasons stand. --Snowded ^TALK

Strong KEEP the article on Wiki. The accusations are false because -- as it is proved in "History of the argument", last paragraph but one -- 9 scholars in their books use precisely this term "Dilemma of determinism" as the name of precisely such distinguished argument as described in the article. Either most or all of them are professors of philosophy, often in reputable universities. Further 17 scholars (as mentioned in the article: Views + Kaufman mentioned in History) mention the argument in this exact form but under possibly other names, often containing the word 'Dilemma' (e.g.: "Dilemma of moral responsibility," or "Libertarian dilemma"). Zaratustra (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I identified the following 8 professors using precisely this name, "the dilemma of determinism", as the name for a distinguished argument (see footnotes in the last but one par. in History): Fischer (Univ. of California, Riverside), Russell (Univ. of British Columbia, of Gothenburg, amongst others), Shafer-Landau (Univ. of North Carolina, of Kansas, of Wisconsin), Fabio Bacchini (Univ. of Sassari), Massimo Dell'Utri (Sassari), John Lemos (Coe College), Kelly G. Shaver (College of Charleston) known for research in the field of moral & social psychology, R. Srikanth (Poornaprajna, in India; he also mentions "standard modern argument against free will" as the name). Doyle's name "the standard argument against free will" is also supported by Dr. Peter Clark (click to see) and probably some others. Zaratustra (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All discussed last time round. The term is used, the term is in other articles that does not of itself justify a whole article replicated material better covered elsewhere ----Snowded ^TALK 19:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which concrete point of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion would justify the deletion? (If you agree there are sources then only Content forking would sound appropriate at first moment, but then it turns out it's about 2 articles on the same topic. Either one is a "copy" of the other, perhaps written in other words, or one is a version of the other following some specific views. But instead, at present there is no article or even a header within an article talking on that specific argument against free will other than Dilemma of determinism. So it seems NO acceptable reason in Deletion policy can justify such deletion of content.) Zaratustra (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK DELETE. - I have read the previous AfD and the arguments given therein, yet I do not believe it to be a walled garden topic. There exists such a philosophical term as per the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) hits, which is not fully covered in determinism. I have seen worse. Still, it contains too much WP:NOR and is simply too badly written. If the article was shortened and the quotes pruned, I would change my vote to Weak Keep. I am also worried by the likely sock puppetry of the pro-keep editors. Zezen (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I have read the reasons to delete this topic, and I haven't yet found one to be satisfactory. It doesn't matter if it is in other places, you still should define Matter in a Scientific Dictionary even if it is mentioned elsewhere in the dictionary and the definition to the term is elsewhere. The same is true with this Philosophy topic as far as I know. It shouldn't matter if the article was badly written, because if so then it should just be edited, not deleted. ----Owlcool ^TALK 10:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You inserted your vote within the strike so I changed this. However this appears to be your only contribution to wikipedia .... ----Snowded ^TALK 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nomination. The topic is legitimate and if it expands on another article to the point where a separate one is needed fine. For the moment this is just a coatrack for material contested elsewhere and per Zezen there is some pretty obvious sock or meat puppetry here. The original article was part of a long running issue which resulted in a community ban for the involved editor. I will just add (for any reviewing admin) that Turrp is a newly created editor just to reinstate this article and that Zarathustra had one batch of editing on on free will article in June (around 8 edits) and now the same on this article otherwise nothing, So both Single purpose accounts ----Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You must understand that now you do present ill will on the topic – "ill" meaning here fighting free knowledge. Every topic that is present in academic writings as a separate term, likely deserves an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the argument that "it is [at the moment] described elsewhere" is one of worst possible demagogies, as the contents of articles (e.g. Determinism) is fluctuating all the time, and in this specific case there is not even a single header within even a single article that would be devoted just to this particular argument. (It might be mentioned in single sentences but never highlighted in structure of articles, thus it can disappear any time). Knowledge about it is not safeguarded when a separate article is not there and that is, obviously, against free knowledge. Zaratustra (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool it and try and address content issues. Look to improve the entry on another article for this and if it grows then maybe a unique one is needed. Content is safeguarded if editors achieve consensus it is not more protected in a separate article. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded's vote is a duplicate vote. Snowded's nomination is their vote.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Haven't made up my mind on this one, but three quick comments about above !votes. @Zaratustra: I think you'll need to do more than show use of the term to convince people. To what extent is this a distinct topic that couldn't/shouldn't be covered in one of the other existing articles? @Zezen: Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, If the article was shortened and the quotes pruned, I would change my vote to Week keep means you should really be !voting weak keep to begin with (i.e. if the topic is notable and there's a workable article hiding inside the current article, that's all that matters). @Snowded: I do remember Cmsreview and his articles, but where did you see a ban? He has no block log and no mention of it on his talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem was with this editor over a range of article, this was just one. The pattern, when material was rejected on other articles, was to create a new article with the disputed material and then claim it as the default text. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree and confirm that this was the pattern of the problem editor in my view also. It is a big distraction for WP now to have to deal with all this fringe, irrelevant stuff that was added by one editor, following the pattern described by Snowded above. warshy ^(YENYEN) 14:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nomination. This is all fringe, really irrelevant stuff in my view. A big distraction for WP to have to deal with this. warshy ^(YENYEN)
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (the article on Wikipedia). Turrp (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per comments above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~A third brand new editor I see ...~~ ----Snowded ^TALK 17:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone considers me brand new.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies when I did a search earlier it only came up with around 12 edits in unrelated fields in October. Just done it again and you are right, may have been a rendering issue on a slow internet connection ----Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. @Rhododendrites: actually, I believe Wikipedia must be objective in the sense that it ought to just mirror the current state of academic and popular knowledge instead of being a judge over it. If more and more experts or scholars use a term as a distinguished topic, there should be a guaranteed place for its definition/explanation. Piotrniz (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(@Piotrniz: My point is there where you say "use a term as a distinguished topic". That they're using the term doesn't mean it's a distinguished topic. People might use the same term to talk about the same thing without ever saying it's the same thing -- that's where it's up to us to look around at other Wikipedia articles and say "do we already cover this topic under a different name?" It's not about determining what's an important topic, but what's [substantially] the same topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with Rhododendrites. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That they're using the term doesn't mean it's a distinguished topic" -- and here I disagree. The term has a meaning, the meaning is "something," so in any case a topic for explanation or discussion; thus distinguished term => distinguished topic. It's that simple. Besides, this dichotomic argument is not brought to attention anywhere else on Wikipedia, not at all (and in particular, not in a manner that would guarantee its existence, e.g. as a separate section); so this is a falsification of the current science of Philosophy on the field of free will. Intellectual honesty is all one needs to see it. The very assertion that 1 necessity and chance are excluding each other and 2 they're the only options is the core of this argument called the D. of D. and this assertion is NOT covered elsewhere in a wikilinkable manner or any other. Can you demonstrate an example to the contrary? Piotrniz (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term has a meaning - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Perhaps it would make sense to add to Wiktionary, but Wikipedia covers concepts/subjects, for which there can be many terms, terms for variations, terms for sub-topics, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dictionaries contain single words, encyclopedias often conjunctions of words or even single-word terms, BUT used mainly in science. Apart from that, it is similar in the sense that it's a scientific dictionary which, at the same time, expands its explanations often beyond definitions. Obviously it should contain definitions just as dictionaries do - and often something more. Whereas your approach ignores even this very basic function of being a dictionary of science. Piotrniz (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, but please someone with an actual background in philosophy (I am not that person, philosophy makes my eyes cross) rewrite it so it's not just a list of viewpoints. It's an article in need of clarification, not deletion. The Rev (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check it out, those of us with a background in Philosophy are voting (again) for delete as the material is already in other articles. This is just a coat rack for material rejected there----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What other voters backgrounds are is not always immediately evident, and how they vote is their business, not mine. However, I looked at the Free will page and so noted that essentially these points were there. I therefore change my position to No Vote, and have struck my above 'Keep'. The information is out there, and in a more relevant format. The Rev (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for others. Deletion was favored in the last AfD and in a deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 28) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets[edit]

Two contributing editors have just been blocked as socks. I have struck their comments, can we now please restore the deletion. One other (Piotrniz) was previously blocked for socking and canvassing on this subject. Check user shows no direct connection with the current two so thinking about it I removed the strike. But overall it illustrates the problem with this subject. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you know 2 accounts are clones of 1 person? It is impossible to know. People use Internet under NAT (Network Address Translation) so that 1 IP is used by several. Simultanous use of Wikipedia through such network is also possible in such configuration. I see no reason why you removed both votes and not just 1. And with regard to your question, you've got my disagreement and of 2-3 other voters. Piotrniz (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how you are trying to stack the cards? Check the link, check user has proved sock puppets and two of the editors above have been blocked, just as you were in association with this subject before. Your comments above indicate that you may well be associated with the two socks. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how on Earth can one prove, without seeing the perpetrator do the thing, that two accounts on 1 IP, maybe even with the same brand and version of webbrowser, belong to one person and not two, if they can live in one house under one netadmin who allocates the same external IP to both? It's quite a common thing. You can block them anyway, due to distrust, bans have their expiration time and are not like death, but using such just probabilistic judgment to solve important discussion and voting is dishonest until true proofs are brought, not just the use of same IP. Have you perhaps interrogated the 2 within these 12 hours before the end of "sockpuppet investigation"?... Still, if basing on WP rules you just say that there must be just 1 acct on 1 IP, then 1 vote is lost because that netuser was an abuser who exceeded the limit. But how is the first one guilty if they could know nothing about the other?? So, at best, you could disqualify 1 vote but not 2. Then you have 3 votes strongly against deletion (perhaps 4 different people) and you have some rules which don't give a reason for deletion. Decide with helpful admins as to what to do, but everoyone sees the abuse of power. Piotrniz (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As i say look at the link to the sock puppet report, Both editors have been permanently blocked from editing wikipedia so both their votes are deleted. Wikipedia has a process for this and its been followed. If you disagree with it take it elsewhere. Frankly I'm amazed your block for sock puppetry and canvassing wasn't permanent as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Still, in no way you negate what I said: that it's dishonest to say somebody is "for sure" just an alter-ego of somebody else, in such a virtual project (cf.: hacks etc.). That's the only thing I want to stress here for this occasion -- so that people in the future can see that dishonesty was used to win & hide this topic -- and not some "morally justifiable" methods. For me this is EOT. Piotrniz (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is wikipedia policy so stop accusing other editors of being dishonest - you should also sign your comments on free will rather than using an IP address as well by the way. Given we are into honesty would you confirm you have had no connection (canvassing or otherwise) with either of the two banned editors? ----Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandraprabha Vidyapitha, Paksey[edit]

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

I know I know... schools are a sacred cow on Wikipedia and everyone seems to think that High Schools and up merely have to exist for presumptive notability. I'm not buying it. I have been unable to find any in depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. In the absence of which this school fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Maybe there are some sources out there that I did not find. But unless some are found or someone can show me an actual guideline that exempts schools from GNG, then this needs to go. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete it. This one's not notable. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's consensus and precedent that keeps secondary schools. No need for a guideline. Proof of existence is enough to keep and we have that from the Bangladeshi government. Whether you're buying it or not is irrelevant - your opinion does not trump consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep its a mainstream educational institution, it has references. But it needed to be improved. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Paksey (the town in which this school is located). Even if the school is presumptively notable, WP:NOPAGE is relevant here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Goes against consensus for secondary school articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Llanelli Star. Selective merge into his newspaper. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 01:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey D. Lloyd[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now resolve this. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Jonathan Oldenbuck. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional results at :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cirt, which of those results actually relate to this Geoff Lloyd? Bencherlite ^Talk 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a proper search for additional sources reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources to show that this gentleman meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lloyd was the President of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. Per cite:
- "Editors' guild president dies". The Glasgow Herald. 29 December 1986. p. 3 – via Google News Archive.
Hope this information is helpful, — Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if this is notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. All articles should be kept 'only if this is notable and acceptable.' But is this person WP:NOTABLE, and what convinces you? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article may not seem like much but any other better sources may not be online so this makes consider keeping, Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article upon which Cirt relies is one headline and two sentences. It only says this: "Editors' guild president dies. The president of the Guild of British Newspapers, Mr Geoffrey Lloyd, has died. Mr Lloyd, 53, had been suffering from cancer." That's it. That's not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's been established that being president of this guild means probable notability and current sourcing found isn't good enough. The guild merged to form the "Society of Editors" in 1999 [3] if it's talking about the correct one. Current president doesn't have an article, there's an entry for his name but I don't think it's him. The "Immediate Past President" doesn't have one either. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively & redirect to Llanelli Star. Obvious solution since we have an article on his newspaper, minor though it is. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively & redirect to Llanelli Star. My serrches on the Proquest archive brought up little, beyond coverage in the paper he edited. Nor, for example an obit in any paper except the Star, that I could find. DGG's soluiton here is a good one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Llanelli Star. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Management by perkele[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article seems like a violation of WP:OR. Some people have taken humoristic variety of a national stereotype and presented is as an academic subject. Starting this article on Wikipedia is the equivalent of starting an article titled "Management by God-damn-it". I suggest removal, put this on Uncyclopedia please. Anonimski (talk) 17:42, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose a better article can be made. Pinging past users JIP, Wwwguy, ProhibitOnions, Altenmann and Gargaj. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only by the will of perkele this huge piece of original research about a nonnotable neologism sits here. the corresponding Swedish article is nowhere that assertive. Basically it is an authoritarian style of government, the rest is writers' fancy and WP:SYNTH. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely conflicting with sisu, which is how the Finns represent themselves, viz. as dogged and determined, rather than quick to decide. This is prejudice and soapboxing masquerading as original research. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadik h khan[edit]

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

I tagged it as A11 but it was removed by another editor. There are zero sources to backup the claim of 1st Bangladeshi millionaire (much less the actual net worth). Cahk (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of significance does not need sources to fail A7, A9, or A11. Far too common a misconception. Adam9007 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a made-up vanity page. The name doesn't show up in any reference to Bangladeshi millionaires, and the first Bangladeshi millionaire is generally considered to be Muquim Ahmed. clpo13_(talk) 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as the article does not make a credible claim of notability since we know that the claim of being the first Bangladeshi millionaire is false. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably would have been best to WP:BLPPROD it. Arguably A7, A11, and/or G3 as "blatant" and "obvious" hoax by user Sadikkk lacking any credible claim of significance. The claim to be the "most beautiful person in the world" is implausible, "most popular man in his university" is plausible but would not lead to notability, and investigtion of "1st Bangladeshi millionaire" shows that the unsourced claim is not straight-from-the-horse's-mouth original research, but straight from another part of the horse's anatomy. Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A credible claim of significance does not even need to be true, just not obviously false. The fact it needed investigation to disprove it means it's not obviously false, and therefore credible. Adam9007 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. It's probably just some college kid from Dhakka having fun. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by the nominator; no opinions to delete remain. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sylvester[edit]

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

Flagged for better referencing since August 2014, this gentleman fails WP:BIO Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) WITHDRAWN following work by Voceditenore I am aware that my withdrawal does not close the discussion since other editors opined to delete. Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep; ~~unable to find sources providing notability.~~d'oh, must have missed a lot of sources. APerson (talk!) 17:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) (Changed vote. APerson (talk!) 13:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete unless this can be better and convincingly improved as I found some links here, here and here. What's unfortunate is also that this has existed since August 2005 so there was certainly time or even the most minimal better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. SwisterTwister, Timtrent, APerson, how on earth can any of you honestly say you looked for but did not find any sources that establish notability? He has entries in the Grove Book of Opera Singers (OUP extract here), the Großes Sängerlexikon (Walter de Gruyter, 2004), and The La Scala Encyclopedia of the Opera (Simon and Schuster, 1993). Plus, he passes WP:MUSICBIO on his discography alone. I found all that in 5 minutes and am now adding it to the article. You all have the completely wrong idea about deletion criteria. Lack of improvement, no matter how long, is not grounds for deletion if sources exist which establish notability—even if they do not currently appear in the article. And please read WP:BEFORE. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely, as per Voceditenore, and note original mover's demurral as above.--Smerus (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, per the sources added today which anybody could have found, Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and close as WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There appears to be good coverage for this subject. My bad. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich House Music School[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have met WP:ORG. None of the sources other the primary ones appears to discuss the subject significantly. Current good sources discuss other subjects rather than the subject of the article. Author moved it to Wikipedia:Greenwich House Music School mistakenly, rather than moving it to mainspace. I would suggest moving this back to draft and improving there. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natsumi Kawahara[edit]

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

Non-notable manga artist. Only one work is listed in Media Arts DB. None of her works have Wikipedia articles on the English side. Not listed in Anime News Network which usually tracks such artists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced Biography and no attempt to show why they are notable. The lack of mentions at ANN and Media Arts DB speaks volumes.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not finding reliable coverage either. /wia /tlk 17:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anime News Network does actually have a page for her [4]. However, they don't have much news coverage of her (just a single news story that mentions her while primarily being about someone else [5]), so that wouldn't be anywhere close to significant coverage. Calathan (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any in depth coverage that would go towards keeping this article. I did notice a book over at the Japanese article possibly attributed to her or referencing her (ISBN 978-4-09-131806-0) but aside from that nothing else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her page on the Japanese WP shows that she won some sort of rookie prize from Shogakukan. This is a pretty major company, so I'll have to ask at WP:ANIME if the award would give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think winning one of the main Shogakukan Manga Awards could qualify someone as notable under WP:ANYBIO, but not winning a rookie award or new manga award. My understanding is that those sorts of rookie awards are a way for manga publishers to find new talent, so the award is basically saying that the studio thinks the person is good enough to become a professional manga artist. I don't think it means that they are especially notable among manga artists, or that they would be expected to have significant coverage in sources beyond just the award announcement. Calathan (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhti baloch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. clpo13_(talk) 16:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I cannot find reliable sources indicating notability here. /wia /tlk 17:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article fails to indicate that this subject has received non-trivial coverage from reliable publications, nor could I find anything of substance during the course of searching. I will add that this article was initially proposed for deletion on 29 October 2015‎ and was subsequently deprodded by 2602:30a:2efe:f050:6c6f:3b3d:9f18:9068 (talk · contribs) who was later blocked for disruption. There is a related list at List of Baloch tribes which is in need of attention from experienced editors as well, due to repeated unsourced changes and additions of a similar nature. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland United FC[edit]

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

Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a WP:FPL, thus fails WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either. Giant Snowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG 73.138.114.150 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are three related AfDs peding. It may make sense to relist or consolidate them in order to ensure a more consistent treatment. The others are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ann Arbor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Rapids FC. Cbl62 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is different. There are extensive arguments made on the other two pages to keep. Leave separate. Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus (2015 film)[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. No references, little more than a cast list. KDS4444^Talk 16:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; fails both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. /wia /tlk 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Well I don't know how I missed the article in the Hindu. Embarrassing. I'm striking this vote. Apologies to MichaelQSchmidt, and thanks for the tips on searching for referencing surrounding Indian-related content, of which I was not aware. Thanks, /wia /tlk 13:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not have any Notability besides a possible promotion. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Keep; expanded slightly with sources to back film up. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

& best with trying WP:INDAFD: Columbus (film) "Columbus, review" "Ramesh Samal"

KEEP per the poor article nominated just 21 minutes after creation about a released film with reviews and coverage to meet WP:NF. Sorry nominater, Wikiisawesome, and Adog104... I know some folks look at present state when gauging topics, and a very poor state does not inspire confidence... but I personaly find it always best to search first before opining on a topic. Point here is that I quickly found a rather lengthy review in The Hindu. There's more, so I will myself give it some wikilove later today. And to Praneeth kannegolla... yes it was your contribution, but it was not helpful to simply remove information that could have lead others to the sources I found. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt...but the only words on the page is "Telugu movie released in october 2015 This is beautiful love story of discovering of love", which quite literally tells me nothing about the subject at all besides its a love story. There's no references, links, or anything to back it up. If you're a non-user coming across this page, you would only learn that a 2015 film is a romance, nothing more. If you want this to stay, add more information and references. I will change it to keep if there is more information (cast, director, plot, production, etc.) and credible references. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog104: The nominator gave the author a whole amazing 21 minutes, and then the author himself removed content out of pique. We judge a topic's notability by its actual sourcability, NOT by the how poorly the information is presented, and being unsourced does not mean it cannot be improved, nor by thinking that it will never be improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: I understand that he had a cast list before deleting it, but that still doesn't help provide information about the movies verifiability. You also have to figure out what happens to Columbus telugu 2015 movie as it is a recreation of the article Columbus (2015 film) from the author. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog104: Diligence finds verifiability. Unintentionally mistreating new editors does not. Read WP:WIP. Read WP:SEP. Read WP:IMPROVE. Read WP:NPOSSIBLE. Read WP:COMMUNITY. Read WP:PRESERVE. And the new article will go because it duplicates an exiting improvable topic. Heck, as an admin I'd be happy to delete it myself once THIS one is expanded and sourced. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: As I was saying...I will switch it to keep and cross out the delete once its sourced and expanded like I vaguely explained at the end of my first response. I'm not trying to aggressively delete this either, I'm only suggesting deletion with the little information we have as of now. If the article is expanded and has a source (which someone can do now in the days before consensus), then I will switch my vote as you are allowed to. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog104: Okay... so you do not care that the topic already meets WP:NF through sources available and so will retain your "delete" simply because it needs work... but if someone else does the work with the many sources available you are willing then to change your "vote"? AFD is not supposed to force improvements... but it often does. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: I'm not forcing anyone to change my vote or opinion; and even maybe when you were responding to what I've said, maybe I was looking up information to help with the film article to change my own vote. Besides I still don't see what is notable about one sentence; and I've been here 2-3 months tops, so help me so if I haven't identified Wikipedia's customs since there is a VAST amount of rules and guidelines I've yet to learn about. And here, changed my opinion and fixed the article to where I'm comfortable with saying Keep (see above). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog104: Thank you for your efforts... and while I completely agree that the nominated article was very poorly written, I have learned through my few years of editing and a few articles I improved, that we have an often overlooked or ignored part of guideline telling us that topic notability is determined through the topic (well written or not) being sourcable to meet WP:NF, and not to be determined by how poorly an article might be written. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(That I gave it 21 minutes was lenient, as WP:NPP suggests that 15 is enough opportunity for an editor to add at least one reliable independent reference to an article— if I were to start from the back of the new pages list, I would be 4,966 days behind, which is a little slow, so I try to work from the other end while also allowing a grace period. Which I did. And so please do not upbraid me for following what I read and understood as the behavioral norm here, as I have nothing else to go by— if 21 minutes in not appropriate, then perhaps you should suggest a change at WP:NPP. But please don't belittle me for following the posted rules, as, Christ, what else am I supposed to do with a unsourced new article on yet another Indian film with a single sentence for its content?? The future, by the way, holds another ten thousand such articles... The people of India are prolific film makers, not all of the resulting films qualifying as notable.)KDS4444^Talk 10:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Not picking on you KDS4444, but speed kills and makes more work for others. I can appreciate your zest to improve Wikipedia, but NPP advises caution when it instructs "Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later."

Also, the New Page Patroller checklist does not say to rush something to deletion, when it tells us "New page patrolling is intended to catch problems with new articles, and either fix those problems or tag the article for future cleanup by other editors."

Yes, India is a prolific film-making country, and yes, a lot of films made there do not qualify for inclusion herein... but please... under WP:NPPNICE you might try to be be a bit less "so certain" of your first opinion if you accept that searches for sources for Indian films is an ongoing problem. Just as WP:INDAFD tells us, "Google News' does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly," and suggests less reliance (if any is actually performed) on Google News for source searches. I have personally found Indian English Newspaper Custom Search Engine and Indian Newspapers Search Engine (for all Indian languages) to be exemplary for finding suitable sources.

And please that, 10-15 minutes suggested before tagging an article from a new editor with a speedy is a suggestion, not a rule. And was the suggestion followed that new contributors be notified of concerns to thus be given the opportunity to bring forth the sources I (and almost anyone else) could have found with just a little due diligence, before you then decided to speedy their work?

The "rules" governing AFD are found at Wikipedia:Deletion policy where the "rules" give us the proper deletion criteria and offer us suitable alternatives...and over at WP:AFD we are instructed us to follow deletion policy and follow due diligence before nominating.

Sorry to lecture, as folks with New Page Patrol zeal sometimes forget that we have other rules and guides on how and why and when to send something to AFD. I know your intentions are good, but the results today have nor born out your "being certain". I hope you continue your looking out for the encyclopedia, and simply suggest you follow WP:NPPNICE and WP:NPPCHK and WP:BEFORE more closely and perhaps be a bit less hasty and slow your roll just a bit. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Schmidt, it seems to be notable and just didn't have enough sources, so it should just be expanded - not deleted. RailwayScientist (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Roses: A Victorian Fairytale[edit]

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

Non-notable eBook. Author appears to have some conflict of interest. //nepaxt 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG and cannot find sources anywhere. /wia /tlk 17:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the author well, but right now the book just doesn't pass notability guidelines. It's fairly hard for most books to pass notability guidelines, especially indie and self-published ones, and this book doesn't seem to be an exception to this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems self-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 02:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK a paucity of any sources found, let alone reliable ones, WP:TOOSOON perhaps? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croix Provence[edit]

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

References consist entirely of LinkedIn and IMDB references. No independent references, never mind non-trivial, secondary, verifiable, or reliable ones. KDS4444^Talk 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once the social networks and primary sources are filtered out, there's nothing that would show WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG notability here. /wia /tlk 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging users who may be interested to comment [email protected], MichaelQSchmidt and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @Wikiisawesome. This is an utterly non-notable individual as actor or anything else. Fanpage crap. Quis separabit? 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Diligent WP:BEFORE shows sources available which could improve the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt - Well.... I did plan on !voting Delete but MQS's saved that, They're not perfect but they're better than what's there now. –Davey2010^Talk 09:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really shouldn't !vote when I've just woke up , Annoyingly I did think this was a TOOSOON case but ended up thinking "Meh someone'll improve it eventually" .... Whatever Delete TOOSOON & all that . –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I performed some improvements but feel an article on her is simply TOO SOON. I had found sources speaking toward her, but not enough of them or in enough depth enough to really meet WP:GNG, and in researching learned that her film projects fail WP:ENT for there being in the most part small roles in short films. Sorry, Davey2010... this is "one" that the nominator got right in his scouting of brand new articles, so perhaps you might go with your original thought. If she does more and gets some decent coverage, the article can always be resurrected.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Prhdbt [talk] 00:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bull (2015 TV series)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, two source. Widefox; talk 20:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not hard to find refs, some already exist in the article itself and here too - [6] [7] Szzuk (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are two in the article already, plus coverage at the Independent, and Express. /wia /tlk 17:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but bordering on WP:TOOSOON (I believe it's airing tonight). Besides the sources, it's airing on Gold (TV channel), which is owned by UKTV, which appears to satisfy the suggestion that an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience from WP:TVSERIES. For now, it appears to be notable, but if it gets canceled after only a few episodes, a new discussion could be had. clpo13_(talk) 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Barnowski[edit]

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

Promotional article with no independent sources currently. News produced a single hit - a press release. Newspapers - 0. Books gives no mention of even the book he was supposedly the co-author of (although if you go to the Amazon link the self-published book has like 50 "authors", and he's not listed amongst them). Scholar returns zero hits. And Highbeam returned a couple of promo pieces, nothing in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better and this current version is simply not acceptable. Pinging subject interested users Tokyogirl79 and LaMona. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. These are all promotional sites or reprints of press releases or merely trivial (BBB listing). LaMona (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no way to verify anything, much less prove notability with reliable sources. The only two Ghits on Google news are (1) a self-created website, and (2) a press release. On Google Newspapers, I only found two local news items, both only tangentially related to the subject. No books by this author appear on Google Books, nor at Barnes & Noble (FWIW, my employer). A quick search by Bing reveals 113 user-created web pages and nothing more. This page appears to be little more than spam. Wikipedia is not a web host. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jolin Tsai bibliography[edit]

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

None of the Tsai-written books are notable, and none of Tsai's translations of others' books are notable as such. There are no sources that bother to list these books, so the list article fails WP:LISTN. So the individual entries are not notable, and the group is not notable as a whole. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally promotional of a non-notable author's non-notable books. LaMona (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing much of a need for this yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of non-notable books and non-notable translations of other peoples' books. Aspects (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea why some people here think those books are non-notable. Books are basically sold in the Greater China region, so it's normal if foreign people don't know them. However, it definitely doesn't mean they aren't notable. Please don't judge subjectively, and leave the decision to people who are familiar with the area's entertainment market. Leehsiao (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous "keep" comment coming from creator of the page (as well as its Chinese version). Creator needs to show how any of her books is notable, just being sold in Greater China region doesn't mean they are. Timmyshin (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even with this expansion by Leehsiao, the material here can easily be hosted at the Jolin Tsai biography page. A page devoted to Tsai's books puts too much emphasis on Tsai as an author, when she is really a performer. She is not famous for being an author; all her fame (and her book sales) are from being a performer. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Binksternet and the other editors' above who !voted for delete. A list of non-notable works by someone not known for their literary works seems a bit of WP:FANCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monasterio de Tarlac[edit]

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

I'm not sure about the notability of this congregation of 30 'monastic brothers' or 'fraters'. They have what is claimed to be a piece of the 'True Cross', but so do many other churches etc. Other than that claim, I can see nothing in the way of notability, but I can see a bit of possible advertising in the giving of the times for the services and in some of the wording. Peridon (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable religious landmark and tourist attraction. 1 2 3 4 5. Article can benefit from a little toning down on its organizational marketing.--RioHondo (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "The reliquary is known to be the only one in the entire continent of Asia." --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a significant pilgrimage site. [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has changed somewhat since I removed substantial copyright violations there, so editors might want to look at it again. If there are independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of the place, I suggest that they should be added to the article so that other editors can evaluate them. At a first glance, the five web pages cited by RioHondo do not fulfill our criteria, but I'm open to discussion of that (yes, the Israelis have agreed to establish a farm there, for example; how does that make it notable?); the comment from NearEMPTiness is lifted from visitmyphilippines.com, a tourism site that one might confidently expect to indulge in unfounded assertions of importance; E.M.Gregory has cited a Google search as evidence of notability! (yes, really, a Google search!) Where is the in-depth coverage in independent sources? I'm not going to !vote for now, but as the page stands it is a no-brainer delete. If people want it kept I believe they should do some serious work on it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I cite above is a google news search with links to news articles about the pilgrimage in reputable dailies, including Philippine Daily Inquirer. Multiple articles in reputable news media are an excellent indicator of notability. Sample articles: [9], [10]. Certainly the article needs improvement. What else is new? My point simply is that the annual pilgrimage, attended by a Bishop, in which the True Cross is venerated happens and is covered in reliable secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers Fyi, that first website (It's more fun in the Philippines) is an official government tourism website by the Department of Tourism (Philippines). So if the Philippine national government through its tourism ministry thinks it is worthy to be included in its promotions (one of only 4 "things to do" for that province) then that should tell you all about its notability.--RioHondo (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could also mean that they were desperate for things to put in there... ;-) Peridon (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or this comment and nomination could be examples of WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS.--RioHondo (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RioHondo, for reminding us of systemic bias (I didn't actually need the reminder, but no matter). However, I think it is inappropriate to suggest that that is the motivation for this nomination. I suggest that the nomination was motivated by the failure of the article as it stands to demonstrate the notability of the topic. I note that although people are happy to tell us how important it is, no-one has actually done anything to fix that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I'm being accused of bias against the Philippines, monasteries or the so called True Cross. I have grave doubts about the last, but it is notable whether 'True' or not. I an biassed against advertising on Wikipedia. I personally would ~~not~~ prefer better than a tourist promotion as a source of notability, whatever the origin of the promotion. Peridon (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Unintended word left over from change of wording (before saving) removed. Peridon (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The same promotion published in the major dailies Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star as pointed out by another user up there. Between you and the government you derided as being desperate, I think anyone can tell who is more credible.--RioHondo (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there may or may not be systemic bias against topics of interest to pious Christians in non-English-speaking, less-developed countries, I think that this is a simple case of the Nom and subsequent editor not having found sources, although IMHO sufficient sources do exist. This is a common situation at AFD; it often takes an editor with knowledge of an area to locate sources. What I want to remind Justlettersandnumbers of is that the quesiton at AFD is not how good an article is, the question at AFD is whether the article topic is notable. I personally spend considerable time and effort improving articles that I happen on at AFD. But sometimes I just look to see if adequate sourcing exists in the world. Editors weighing in at AFD are not required to rewrite or source the articles they weigh for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not being one who reveres governments and politicians, I'm no more against or pro the Philippine Govt than I am any other. My meaning was that the particular province might have very little in the way of tourist attractions to be put in, so they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. There are places like that: Widnes for one (albeit not a province). The mention of only four things for the province (including this subject) may speak volumes - unless the tourist authority are missing things. Possibly the ecotourism park might help the notability of the monastery. Up to you. I usually bring things to AfD for confirmation of a non-blatant hoax, or with the hope that someone will do what hasn't been done and turn an article around. If you've got good WP:RS references, add them. Don't just mention them in passing here. Prove me wrong. I'll be happier than I will be if this is deleted. Peridon (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poor articles should be tagged, not brought to AFD, see: WP:BEFORE. Here's what News5 says about the pilgrimage to Tarlac Monastery: [11], [12], I linked to articles in other major Philippine media above. It's time to drop this endless back-and-forth, and keep the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing up this important guideline pertinent to this discussion, which of all people here, an admin failed to realize. Calling a country's government desperate can only mean two things, you are simply biased against governments in general which I can probably accept if you are from around here, or you are biased against the people and nation that that particular government represents, which is more likely coming from someone not from this country. And since this is a discussion on a country's tourist attraction being questioned, it can be interpreted as a country having desperate heritage attractions. You have got to be careful with what you say, especially if you are an admin.--RioHondo (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for improvement. I assume that this is not a hoax. If it is a visitor attraction that people go to, we should probably keep it. Personally I do not believe in the relic (but I do not know). Alternatively could we merge to the ecopark? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to ping you in case I got accused of canvassing... I'll happily withdraw the nom if someone will add a better ref or two to the article. IMO it isn't a hoax. I don't think there is an article about the ecopark - all I can find is San Jose, Tarlac which mentions both the monastery and the ecopark. Peridon (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, not even any indication of importance DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doremisoft studio[edit]

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

Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for references since 2010. A search turned up press releases and download sites for their 'mac video converter', but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional Dialectric (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging past users Utcursch and Ktr101. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial improvements in five years, so I see no reason to keep this on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unix_time#Command_line: best action due to merge. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date (Unix)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unix commands are not notable. KDS4444^Talk 15:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find sources that establish notability. APerson (talk!) 17:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not to mention that this subject already went through an AFD discussion and was deleted then as well. KDS4444^Talk 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, the previous discussion was a year ago? Well, my opinions haven't changed, and neither has Wikipedia policy. We already have too many articles on trivial command line utilities, and we certainly don't need more. The most relevant policy here is WP:NOTHOWTO, and I don't see how we're going to avoid violating it with this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to Unix_time#Command_line - I have boldly included a copy of this content in Unix_time. Fine to replace the article with a redirect now. Something that could be consdered WP:BEFORE deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unix time § Command line, per the merge that was performed. This is necessary to retain attribution history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the logic of Kvng and Northamerica1000. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salalihini Sandeshaya[edit]

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

From what I can read through what appears to be a horrific machine translation, the topic of this article (kawyas sandesha, article title notwithstanding) are a genre of poetry in the Sinhalese language, but no information appears to be available other than this single article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confusing, filled with foreign words, and not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete requires major cleanup/re-writing/referencing before it's notability can even be determined. Dan arndt (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CloverSac[edit]

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

Article about a year old company. The article sources seem to be entirely blogs, many of which are likely affiliate marketing blogs. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply see no convincingly better improvement but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not even the blogs that list it are major. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny of Choice[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK with no secondary sources or awards. The only source given is a WP:NEWSPRIMARY blog interview. I couldn't find any press coverage of the book, just a few reader reviews. McGeddon (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources.- Mr X 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that would show notability for the author. The only thing I really found was a Kirkus Indie review, which cannot be used since it's a pay-for-review service. There just isn't anything out there for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khanom Kai[edit]

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

belongs in a recipe book, not Wikipedia. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While many dishes can be notable, I don't see any mention of this in Google Books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Thai language search) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason provided for deletion. The recipe content can easily be rewritten into a proper description; the article, though a stub, does contain further information about the sweet itself. As for notability, this is easily evidenced by the dish's numerous newspaper appearances.[13][14][15][16] --Paul_012 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been renamed Khanom khai. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leniency is given to Indian/bollywood subjects as sourcing compared to the UK/US is always poor, Plus it being a 1955 film you're probably not gonna find much in terms of online sources but I'd imagine there would be a few stories in newspapers & whatnot. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Drive (film)[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. KDS4444^Talk 14:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - The film has IMDB page which is enough to prove that the film does exist and it is important. so, it should be kept. Magipur (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb itself is likely insufficient to demonstrate notability, and this subject doesn't seem to meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG after a search for references. /wia /tlk 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS:

year:(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)

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

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

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

And alts per WP:INDAFD: "Marine Drive, 1955" "G. P. Sippy" "N. Datta" "Bina Rai" "Yaqub" "Johnny Walker"

Keep. Searching Google on ' "Marine Drive" film -wikipedia ' yields hits including this 2009 review of the 1955 film. "Marine Drive" itself is the avenue along the Bombay beach/waterfront I think. --do ncr am 03:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a bold non-admin closure as REDIRECT to Noodle since this discussion has gone on for over a week and I don't forsee this concluding with a keep result. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fideo[edit]

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

No sources since 2009. The term "fideo" is nothing more than the Spanish language name for noodles. This page should be deleted and/or redirected to Noodle--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say redirect or merge with the noodle article. This is not Wiktionary. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTDICTIONARY rationale. Not commonly used in English so delete rather than redirect. Vrac (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to noodle per the WP:NOTDICTIONARY logic. Doesn't need a standalone article. /wia /tlk 20:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sun studio[edit]

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

All the references appear to be trivial or tangential. I see no evidence of WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing obviously better. Pinging Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence in sources or in the article for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing on the search engines to show they meet the notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are not so much reportage as they are lazy reprinting of--in all likelihood--the company's own press releases. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Analytix[edit]

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

non notable company. Refs are basically press releases or notices about private financing. Since every company in the world has financing from somewhere, such refs do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are over a dozen full articles written about the company, none of which are press releases, all of which are in legitimate publications. There is no reason this article does not pass GNG. The company's software is used by 40% of all Fortune 500 companies, which means it has a high profile and historical value. It's a quickly written page, I could have added in a lot more sources. It would be one thing if there were actual press releases to be pointed to, these are all articles that comply with Wikipedia's MOS. Private financing is only a small part of this page, but even under that rubric, it's just blatantly untrue that every company has their funding written about in RS, or even that RS about "certain things" should be excluded. Usterday (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral but maybe actually leaning delete for now until a better article can be made as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional articles to the page now, from Financial Times, Accounting Today, Computer World, and others. I have also fleshed out some of the citations so that their publication information is clearer in case of confusion. Usterday (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per GNG, obvi enough RS refs, could be more Neutral. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a very noteworthy/notable book. Claims of multiple editions and translations may have some validity, but all the reprints I found since 1995 are by minor publishers 9https://books.google.com/books?id=TyLRAwAAQBAJ], [17], [18]) and, increasingly, by outfits like [Lulu https://books.google.com/books?id=dt-BAgAAQBAJ] and Kessinger. Google Books proves a few mentions in other books ([19], [20]) but those don't even cite the book, they just list it. I'm not going to take this citation as evidence of much, given the source.

Now, JSTOR offers a bit more: this overview of the "White ethnic experience" (yes) gives it two sentences, this review of a 1964 biography mentions it (with no detail), and this 2003 review of yet another book on Tesla says it's a well-known biography. But that's it--I really don't see enough evidence that this book passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Teslaphile stuff; clearly not a useful article, whether the book itself is notable or not William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and trout the nominator with the largest and most foul-smelling piscine to be found (with a side whack for his supporter). Dear God. Did no one notice that the book's author won the Pulitzer Prize for his science journalism, and that this book is a serious and substantive book in that field? That's one hell of a lot more important than noting who reprinted it sixty years after it was published. Obviously nobody bothered to check the Google Scholar search results, showing many cites (under multiple forms of the title/author name). It took me 38 goddamn seconds to turn up a lengthy and favorable review in the Sunday Times Book Review, pretty much the gold standard for establishing notability of a US book, for February 4, 1945. Not so complete a fail as the recent attempt to delete a very, very well-known Doris Lessing novel, but a worse-than-routine embarrassment for our claim to be a serious encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the NY Times book review, and will try to find a few more RS. LaMona (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - don't agree that winning a Pulitzer means all your books are automatically notable, but the NY Times review and this review [21] are enough to establish notability, in my opinion. The fact that the book is still in print is also a very strong sign the book is notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, evident from above reviews mentioned and these (some short but sweet:)): [22] from Common Ground of Spring 1945 - "This man died in obscurity, his life a riddle and his fame insecure. O'Neill, who knew him intimately, gives the reasons in this brilliant study of the person and his work.", [23] from The Saturday Review of Literature of Dec 9, 1944 - "John O'Neill has beautifully painted that strange and lonely man. And If he has sat too close to him to give the portrait depth and background, it is none the less a fine likeness and perhaps a great picture as well.", and [24] from Kirkus Reviews - " All in all, the discussion of his work in electricity, the principles behind his system of power transmission, his discoveries in the rotating magnetic field, and numerous other contributions make him an instrument in many phases of our physical existence today.". Coolabahapple (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Higgins[edit]

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

The subject lacks notability. Zatrp (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now in any case unfortunately as I found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If his inheritance was used to endow multiple university chairs he is likely enough to be notable, to merita more extended search. I find "40,000,000 Science Fund Willed to Four Universities." New York Times, Aug. 21, 1948.) DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Narratives[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NALBUMS. Lots of SoundCloud hits and such, Article says album was released just over two weeks ago. Seems like a promo push for a barely, if that, notable artist. Jbh ^Talk 15:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - there's nothing here yet - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – three independent reviews now added, satisfies WP:NALBUMS#1.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hardware description language#History. Never close this early but it's been up 3 weeks and I don't think we're gonna get a better discussion that this so wrapping it up now (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Block diagram Language[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Previous AfD (2010) resulted in no consensus (poor participation) and has been tagged for notability for over 7 years. Hopefully we can now resolve this, one way or the othe. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Lambiam, Tiggerjay, RasterFaAye, Adrianwn, Oo7565, Enigmaman, JulesH, Biggayallison, Bradv, CCWWuss. Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hardware description language#History. The language is insufficiently notable for a separate stand-alone article; moreover, this blurb-like article is not actually informative. (Note. I never received an alert, even though my name was mentioned.) --Lambiam 00:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hardware description language#History, per Lambiam's reasoning. This topic isn't independently notable. APerson (talk!) 17:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackets (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

New, non-notable pro wrestling stable. Prod removed by IP. Provided refs are mere lists of results and links to the promotion's own site. WP:TOOSOON at best. --Finngall ^talk 13:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely too soon as the group has only been around about a month. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 16:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 16:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any significant in-depth third-party coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability. As mentioned above, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Metal[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No independent refs. PROD and several warning templates removed by SPA creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the commonality of the name, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of school districts in Kosovo[edit]

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

This article was started as a list but contains no useful information. It is an orphan so nothing is reaching here anyway. I suggest WP:TNT Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as far as I know, Kosovo does not even have a concept of school district – municipalities of Kosovo are in charge of running the day-to-day school business, as the article itself admits. I don't see a purpose of this list. No such user (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasoning Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Municipalities of Kosovo, which does contain a complete list and states (no. 8) that the municipalities are responsible for education: Noyster (talk), 13:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. Leita Steel Construction[edit]

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

CSD removed in 2014 by user whose only edits were on this page. Non notable organisation Gbawden (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now in any case as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Not notable. rayukk | talk 17:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't feel that this meets the WP:CORP notability standard. /wia /tlk 20:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Rose Herbs[edit]

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

Pure promotionalism, and borderline notability at best, . Most of the content is a description of their multiple routine environmental credentials in laudatory language, which is appropriate content for a web page, not an encycopedia article. Ditto for the pictures of their product packages, and a photo of a very nice looking polished wood award they were once given by an unimportant local group. The list of remarkabley minor awards is most of it too trivial even for a good web page.

and when I see an article of a 180-person company company listing 4 executives, I know what the purpose of the article is. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as "Mountain Rose Herbs Oregon company" found several links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but unlikely for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a local business in Oregon. Unless better sourcing can be found, it would fail WP:CORPDEPTH and thus would have to be a delete. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Here's a source from NPR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have added citations from USNews and NPR (thanks Northamerica1000), and have edited the article to hopefully remove DGG's issues with promotion. I think the NPR piece dispels the issues with WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider almost all of section three promotional, designed to impress the typical consumers they aim at: it's what they want the customers to know, which is the basic definition of advertising. The awards in section 4 are every one of them utterly trivial. The NPR piece is essentially an advertorial, containing no reporting, but just quotes from the company. The US News article is a long article about Ginseng, with one sentence saying the this firm is a supplier--a perfect example of an incidental mention DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - didn't have an opinion before, but I think keeping the article (and keeping the promotional cleanup tag) is the best path now given the removal of some promotional content. Regarding section three and four: I disagree that they are too promotional. I think it's OK to mention some awards and policies of the company, assuming those sections don't take up a disproportionate amount of the article. Appable (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in the Americas[edit]

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

We already have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_South_America and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_North_America with this article simply combining the other two articles. Legacypac (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see value in having a list of all countries in the Americas on its own page. The "Americas" is an encyclopedic topic generally, given the interrelationship between the countries and the Columbus exploration event, so having a list seems warranted. Also these lists don't change very much, so I don't see a problem in terms of effort maintaining the 3 pages. (The are also pages for other lists List of sovereign states and dependent territories in the Caribbean for other regional groupings, and these all make sense in my opinion) -- R45 ^talk! 15:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the contrary, I don't see a value for having a duplicated list, and the topic is well covered in other articles. The effort in maintaining the 3 pages is not negligible, at least for vandal-fighting if not for any other reason. The quite long history of this article shows that a significant effort has been put to maintain it, without a clear benefit for the reader. No such user (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just another complied list as it refer super continent like List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia. --Antan O 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is equally useless as it covers about 1/2 the countries in the world. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see value in having this or the Eurasia one either. The lists get an average of about 40 views each per day, which is not alot considering the individual continent lists they're linked from which get hundreds of views each per day, with Africa and Europe regularly getting 1000+. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merajuddin Khan[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable? as my searches found links here, here, here, here, here, here including all of the English newspapers listed at List of newspapers in Pakistan so all in all I'm not sure if this is entirely notable and will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users who may be interested to comment Bearcat and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
possible Keep. Claim to have been Presidient of Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba. but not listed in their article. If it can be verified, he might be notable, as it's a notable organization DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of hits. http://nation.com.pk/national/11-Apr-2013/ji-demands-revival-of-old-course-of-9th-class lists him as Chairman of the Standing Education Committee of JI. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-348868-JI-new-setup-completes-as-office-bearers-take-oath lists him as vice-president of JI in KPK. http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/15-Aug-2004/clerics-slam-foreign-interference-in-pakistan-s-affairs lists him as chief of their labour federation (2004). http://www.allthingsnow.com/day/news/shared/48502237/Rallies-in-KP-condemn-Israeli-aggression-against-Palestinians and http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-139619-JI-names-district-presidents-for-KP mentions him as district ameer of JI. http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/04/08/national/mainstream-parties-field-khattaks-in-na-5-nowshera-i/ mentions his candidature in 1993. see also http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-167865-JI-announces-candidates-for-national-KP-assemblies , http://www.dawn.com/news/919676/buner-three-party-alliance-optimistic-of-victory-buner-by-poll , http://www.dawn.com/news/15630/peshawar-ji-protests-detention-of-qazi-fazl , http://www.dawn.com/news/745932/news-in-brief-31-08-12-p , http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/24-Mar-2005/million-man-march-people-should-participate-to-protest-pro-us-policies-mma , http://www.dawn.com/news/194322/peshawar-military-officials-blamed-for-mess-in-wapda , http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=234136&Cat=7&dt=4/12/2010 . Here is the source for IJT presidency: "[Karachi DAWN in English l4 Nov 83 p 7] NEW IJT OFFICE HOLDERS — Lahore, Nov l3: Merajuddin Khan has been elected Nazim-i-Ala of the Islami Jamiat-i-Tulba , Pakistan, for the session l983-84, according to an IJT Press release." https://books.google.com/books?id=5iq6AAAAIAAJ p. 116 --Soman (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred M. Manning[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this (the first two links are the best saying he "made a fortune" and the second "had formerly run one of the largest oil- drilling concerns in the United States" and this so I'm also not sure if this can at least be merged somewhere such as Dwight Eisenhower's article although is it fully needed is the question. This was started by the SPA author CD972 and simply has not been changed since starting in February 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and do not include in the Eisenhower article. We do not include every friend he had, or everyone mentioned in his papers. That's what the Johns Hopkins edition ofhis papers is for, and his Presidential Library finding list. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was profiled in a book:
Nathan Aaseng. Business Builders in Oil. Oliver Press, Inc. 2000. p. 131.
"Fred Manning Sr. Dies". Independent. Long Beach, California. 1958-11-01. Archived from the original on 2015-11-08. Retrieved 2015-11-08.
The article notes: "Fred M. Manning Sr., a prominent oilman in the West for many years, died in a Los Angeles hospital Friday of lung disorder. Manning, 62, had been in poor health several years.
A "prominent oilman" likely passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. And there are also numerous sources about him and his company from Newspapers.com.
Cunard (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Keep Obits ran in several in major newspapers, all it took was a quick news archive search, which WP:BEFORE should have been done before bringing an oil millionaire to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to walk that back. There were two, pere and fils. The older founded oil company and d. 1958. His son, Fred M., d. 1999. This needs someone with time to straighten it out. but they probably both get articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing article to be about Mannings Pere, with mention of fils taken form Denver Post obit. There is enough here to keep. I think the article will now suffice. I have no strong feelings about keeping the last sentence, which I included mostly because one of the sons had Dad's name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more sourcing available on searches that omit Fred's middle initial and combine name with keywords like oil, Kettleman, Oklahoma or drilling, easily found in the trade journals that come up on books google searches, and other searches in the trade press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kimmel[edit]

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

Questionably notable? and improvable as the best links I found was this, this and this and this simply has not improved since starting in January 2006. Pinging Magioladitis, Rogermx and Krenakarore. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of American fishers. Not finding enough source coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already on the American fishers list (I think thanks to Northamerica1000). Not enough for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakshana Foundation[edit]

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

Questionably notable with a certainly unacceptable current version and the best my searches found was this, this, this, this and this. Pinging Magioladitis, Rkmallik and Brainy J. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional and nonnotable. Coaching schools and organizations are almost never considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with David's interpretation. Agricola44 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - nothing but trivial mentions and press releases in the searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenShot Direct[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this and there hasn't been any change since starting in June 2007. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download site links, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users NinjaRobotPirate, DMacks, Czar, Esquivalience and Salvidrim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 November 2015‎(UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable source, fails GNG and also doesn't pass the criteria in WP:NSOFT (essay).—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage to show it passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rustle the Leaf[edit]

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

As much as I'm genuinely concerned with the environment, I'm simply not seeing any obvious improvement and there's no newer coverage than 2005 and 2006 as shown here, here, here and here and this simply hasn't changed since starting in August 2008. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging environmentalist Velella for comment. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article written very much like an advertisement with almost all substantial content from the article creator who was an SPA. I can find nothing that suggests that this is notable or even that it was notable in its time. Good intentions and probably helpful but not Wikipedia grade. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, unable to find anything useable, comic strip appears to have been produced to promote cleaning products, see [25], from 2003 onwards. Also, created by SPA who appears to be one of the comic strip creators. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klement Tinaj[edit]

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

Clearly an autobiography. Notability dubious based on unclear references. Mondiad (talk) 13:46, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this current version is simply not acceptable and not to mention the subject started it himself and having this look like a personal webpage so that's certainly not helping. Pinging tagger PRehse and likely interested subject users Wikimandia and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant keep I found a very nice English-language article about this person on Albanian Daily News which was picked up by Albanian Ulqini and others , and I found a decent Albanian-language interview by Voice of America shared on Newday... and other Albanian-language coverage in such as Kosovo Sot. Essentially, being unknown here is not the factor... as notable to Albania through Albanian coverage is just fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the Reluctant part of Reluctant Keep but will hold off voting for a bit. The article is a glaring piece of self-promotion complete with un-necessary fluff and it would be easier to see some claim to notability if it was fixed up by someone other than the original author. The Albanian Daily article reads like a promo piece and only contributes towards fulfilling WP:GNG - I would say we would need much more. His work remains minor roles and self produced work of no significance.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - but cut to stub to remove promo stuff. He does have coverage and he's been in some high-profile films. I feel like he's just on the cusp of GNG and if we delete the article it will just be recreated within three months. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Radio[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Due to the moronic name I can't find anything at all on this station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an unfortunate delete at least until it can ever be improved as radio stations are almost always kept but I simply see nothing better here. Pinging interested subject users RadioFan and Neutralhomer. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: Sorry, I have zero knowledge of UK radio stations. @Bearcat:, @Mlaffs: or @Dravecky: might know something more about UK stations than I do. Hopefully they can help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per NMEDIA...and consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NMedia's an essay not a guideline but anyway NMEDIA states A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources - As far as I can see there are no sources for the station,

It also states Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming - Well we have idea on the audience. The Broadcast history isn't entirely long and to be fair all radio stations have unique programmes but all of this IMHO doesn't mean it should be kept,

Notability IMHO needs to be proven not just assumed, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there is no consensus either, Some get kept some get deleted .... –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Yeah, there is. If you are talking about the ones from the Philippines, that's because there is a TON of fake radio and television station articles floating around from there. Essentially they are blowin' 'em up and startin' over. No UK or US radio station articles have been deleted unless there was just cause. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I'm aware there's no consensus to keep 'em but we'll agree to disagree, Ah I had no idea about that but then again I've never worked on Phili radio stations, UK stations are deleted tho as I've nominated tons in the past and most if not all have been deleted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this awhile, so believe me when I say, there is strong consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was consensus to keep these all my prev radio AFDs would've been kept .... There's no consensus pure and simple. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect, pure and simple. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is or was consensus to Keep these then none of my previous AFDs would've been deleted would they, All were deleted by different admins and most had about 3 or 4 delete !votes and not one Keep .... So clearly there is no consensus to Keep them!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMEDIA, to be clear, does not grant any radio station an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. It's true that if an article contains valid and proper sourcing, then NMEDIA does not require it to make any claim of notability more special than the possession of an Ofcom license — but it does not grant a station the right to stick around Wikipedia permanently on zero sourcing. We have seen claims that a radio station was duly licensed when it really wasn't — so it's not the claim of an Ofcom license that gets a radio station into Wikipedia, it's the sourcing that can be provided to properly verify the accuracy of the claim. Accordingly, I'm willing to flip if this sees sourcing improvement before closure, but in this completely unsourced state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to have had significant coverage in reliable sources, fails GNG. And also, does not pass WP:BCAST.—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SwisterTwister and UY Scuti. Not enough coverage to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coping With[edit]

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

Non-notable series of books. References to demonstrate the notability of this series aren't turning up. (NB, I've nominated Elderado Dingbatti as well, which is a fictional foil used in this series.) Mikeblas (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article could be removed due to its lack of support and how it reads more like promotional material than a neutral summary.TH1980 (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears to be a notable enough series of children's books, given that several were made into a BAFTA-award winning TV movies.[26], [27], [28], [29] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any significant coverage, thus fails GNG. And doesn't seem to have a passed WP:BKCRIT. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above was made into BAFTA award-winning TV movies. Internet sourcing will be harder to find for books first released in 1989. AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the BAFTA films are the tipping point for me. AusLondoner's point about it being pre-internet is a valid one, I bet there are hard-copy resources from British papers of the 80s which talk about this, but the "there must be" argument is one that I wouldn't hinge my !vote on. The BAFTA connection, however, is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Dogg discography[edit]

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

Artist's page deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Dogg (2nd nomination). Barely misses being WP:A9 thanks to one of the items on the list being a compilation work that DOES have a page. It would be a stretch to call this WP:G8 (page dependent on non-existent page - namely that of the artist) but not a large stretch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also participated at the other AfD and thus there's simply no need for this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:Paulmcdonald/Skyles. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N. H. Skyles[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over four years. Prod removed by article creator with reference to a notability essay which has never made it to guideline as it is way too permissive and not in line with our generally accepted notability standards.

No evidence that this college football coach meets WP:BIO in any way or shape. Included in football databases and mentioned in some other sources, but hasn't received any indepth attention from reliable, independent sources. I could e.g. find nothing in Google Books, not even a mention of him (excluding Wikipedia mirrors). Probably some variation on the search will result in some mention somewhere, but as long as it isn't significant attention, I don't believe we should have an article on him. Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being "tagged for notability" is not a reason to delete. Having the PROD removed by the article creator (me) is also not a reason to delete. The only real argument to delete is that no indepth attention from reliable indepenedent sources is found online. It should not be shocking that such sources are not found online for a head college football coach from 1893. As to the significance of the program, it would be another 15 or so years before the NCAA would begin, 27 years before the National Football League--this was the highest level of the sport at the time. We have confirmed that the coach did exist, was the head coach, and the win-loss record. We can also confirm the basic statistics of games for the season -- we have data on the coach. This puts the subject past the threshhold established in WP:SPORTCRIT: "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level..." There is no deadline, let Wikipedia work and offline sources will be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective quotation much? You just happened to omit the last few words of that line from SPORTCRIT: "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." College football in 1893 is not comparable to something like the Olympics by any stretch of the imagination. College football in 1893 was, as far as I'm aware, not even an international competition, so even your abridged quote doesn't apply to this article. In fact, they played seven games, six of them in Pennsylvania, one in Maryland. It can hardly be even called a national competition at this stage in time.[30] Fram (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not intentionally leave off anything that I felt would be of importance, but thanks for brining up the Olympics. It would be another three years before the first modern Olympiad at the 1896 Summer Olympics. I didn't include the Olympics because in 1893 there were no Olympics and it would be another year before the International Olympic Committee would even form. As for college football being international (if that matters) the List of college football games played outside the United States may be a helpful reference.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Olympics are an important part of that quote as they indicate the kind of event that sentence is meant to be about. Two-state college football games are not really comparable. And there were international games, great, but Skyles (or even his team) wasn't in any of them as player or coach, so again, that line doesn't apply to him. You have a very long discussion with Dirtlawyer1 about the status of SPORTCRIT, but that is totally irrelevant: Skyles doesn't meet SPORTCRIT in whatever interpretation you want to give it. Fram (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know where the two state universities comment comes from, this is a coach at one private school. Maybe you were talking about the other programs that they played were only from two states? The landscape of college football was very different in 1893, and several of the articles discovered and added since the AFD can help show that. In 1893, the coverage of even one game by this program is greater than the coverage of the modern Olympics at the time because they hadn't been formed yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        He coached in seven games, six in Pennsylvania, one in Maryland. That's two states, so not even a national competition, never mind international. The sources added to the article are passing mentions, nothing substantial, in local newspapers. They do nothing to establish notability for Skyles (and the first note is speculation ahnd has no place in an encyclopedia). The rest of your reply really doesn't do you any credit. Fram (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Your personal opinion of me is not a reason to delete the article. That the competitions took place within two geographic states does not mean that they were not notable either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think I haev implied anywhere that my opinion of you (or more precisely, of some replies you made here) is a reason to delete anything. I have given clear, policy-based reasons for deletion. You have invoked a notability guideline that clearly isn't applicable in this case, and otherwise made largely irrelevant or hard-to-follow replies. If you want to keep this biography, simply provide us with the sources that show the notability of this person. Fram (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        "The rest of your reply really doesn't do you any credit." that's called a "personal attack" -- and irrelevant. I could be a raving lunatic, but that doesn't make the argument invalid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        ? That sentence means the exact opposite of what you are reading into it. "That reply doesn't do you any credit" = "I hadn't expected that reply from you, I expected better arguments". I know that you are well capable of rational, balanced arguments based on evidence, but in this case these things were missing. That's not a personal attack, that's a comment on the merits of 'part of) one reply and an indication that I don't consider this typical of you. That these got more attention in 1893 than the 1896 Olympics (not yet planned) or the sinking of the Titanic did (as the Titanic wasn't even built yet) is a total non-argument. The question is: got this event (when it happened in 1893 and afterwards) anything comparable to the attention another event like the Olympics got (when it happened, and afterwards)? The answer obviously is no. Fram (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no idea whether Skyles is notable or not, as I have not run the first Google search about him. However, WP:SPORTCRIT is not a separate specific notability guideline under WP:NSPORTS; SPORTCRIT is a description, with an example (i.e., Olympic athletes), of what probably would satisfy the general notability guidelines per GNG, and thus perhaps qualify for inclusion in WP:NSPORTS as a separate specific notability guideline (after discussion and adoption by consensus). Please note that college football already has a specific notability guideline, WP:NCOLLATH, and that is the specific notability guideline that applies here. If the subject does not satisfy the NCOLLATH criteria, the subject may, in the alternative, satisfy the GNG criteria directly. Selah. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Respone WP:SPORTCRIT is the shortcut to what is listed on that page as "Basic criteria" --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Paul, I know: it's the basic criteria for inclusion as a specific notability guideline for sports, with an example. Otherwise, only athletes (not coaches) who competed in the Olympics and similar international championships would be eligible. You have to read it in context, and in its entirety. SPORTCRIT is not a separate guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are we defining college coaches as college athletes? If so, then NCOLLATH would be a good criteria. I never said SPORTCRIT is a separate guideline, it is simply a shortcut to a different place on the same page that covers the basic criteria.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Paul, WP:SPORTCRIT is not a "short cut" to anything; it recites the GNG standard that is generally applicable to sportspersons (and, indeed, to all persons), and then provides an example of a category of sportspersons (Olympic athletes and other world champions) who, as a class, are likely to satisfy GNG, and therefore be strong candidates, as a class, for a specific notability guideline under WP:NSPORTS. Beyond that SPORTCRIT discusses the types of coverage that do and do not satisfy the GNG criteria. Beyond reciting the GNG criteria, SPORTCRIT is not a notability guideline. Citing SPORTCRIT in an AfD makes no sense, unless you are doing so to also reference the GNG notability criteria that SPORTCRIT references.

As for WP:NCOLLATH, please read it carefully:

"College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:

"Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.

"Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).

"Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team."

Please note that college coaches are specifically included under NCOLLATH (bolded/italicized emphasis is mine). If a college athlete or coach does not satisfy the NCOLLATH criteria (and most don't), then the subject may still satisfy the GNG criteria (as recited by SPORTCRIT) with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, etc., and virtually all modern Division I-A/FBS football coaches do. Bottom line: Skyles probably needs to satisfy GNG, because it does not appear that he is covered by any of the NCOLLATH criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say WP:SPORTCRIT is not a shortcut? Click on it. It takes you to the page Wikipedia:Notability (sports), a basic notability guideline. It's a shortcut, by definition--to highlight section 2: Basic criteria.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're now talking about two different meanings of "short cut"; as you are using it, clearly it is a link or short cut to the section. It is not, however, a short cut to notability under NSPORT. As I have explained at length above, SPORTCRIT recites the GNG standard, as does WP:BASIC. That's not an accident; in the absence of an applicable NSPORTS specific notability guideline, such as NCOLLATH, the athlete or coach must satisfy the GNG criteria. Indeed, all NSPORTS specific notability guidelines are supposed to be based on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of persons who would satisfy the specific notability guideline would also satisfy a full GNG analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What meaning of "short cut" were you using?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT "is not, however, a short cut to notability under NSPORT." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. Click on it. Second section "Basic Criteria".--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Franklin_&_Marshall_College#Athletics. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Based on the age and the fact that something reputable about them is actually found on the internet. This does need a better write up, however, anyone interest in going to a library? Mines incredibly tiny See below! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #1 There is some issues that need to be fixed in this article. The article states N.H Skyles played football and was captain of Franklin and Marshall. According to F&M the captain was E. P. Skiles not N. H. Also According to F&M the coach was just listed as Skyles. I think there is some confusion on who the coach is. As far as I can tell none of the Reference listed in the article state the first name of the coach (or captain or player) of F&M 1893 team. The newspaper articles just list his last name. Even College Football Data Warehouse list the coach as “Coach Skyles.” I found in “Religious Leaders of America, Volume 1” that Rev. N.H. Skyles son was named Eugene Pierre Skyles and was born in 1870 and went to F&M. This fits with the time line on being the captain of the team. Either E.P. was both the coach and captain in 1893 (common for the time) or his Father (N.H.) coached his son. According to this N.H. was living in Jeanette, PA which was clear across the state. But once again this was not unheard of in a era when the coach was basically a part time job. One other option is that there is another N.H. Skyles.09er (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 As for N. H. Skyles … When I did a google book search I came across the book “The History of the Reformed Church in Virginia, 1714-1940” by Jay Silor Garrison. In the Google snippet of text from the book it says the following: “N. H. Skyles was born at Martinsburg, Blair County, Pa., June 22nd, 1837, and departed this life December 31st, 1918. His age was 81 years, 5 months and 8 days. He entered Franklin and Marshall College in the year 1856, and was ...” This sounds like a start of a good biography. Unfortunately it is only snippets so I do not know if it meet the GNG. My recommendation is for someone interested in this person to get a hold of this book through an inter-library loan and see if this is as complete of a biography as it looks from 3 lines. Also there seems to be a lot of Google book hits if you use Rev. N. H. Skyles. If this same guy I am thinking his time football coach is minor part of his life (if he was actually the coach). If someone is interested to get a hold of the many books that google shows you only a snippet he could pass GNG. 09er (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I think you're on to something there. I originally put this article together years ago, and none of the sources as I see them today support "N H" in the name. They could have changed and been corrected, or I could have made an error. Issues such as these are editing issues, not deletion issues. Let's fix it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but what is the best way of doing this. Until we find out who actually coached F&M in 1893 I think it wise that we userfy the article. Once we have the right person as coach we can bring it back. From what I read in google book snippets there is probably is enough to make a case for meeting GNG for both N. H. and E.P. I have edited a lot of coaches from this era and a lot of times the problem is not finding enough independent 3rd party sources but getting a hold of those articles and books. 09er (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy? Is that some sort of hiding of the article 'til someone gets around to doing a write-up? Just curious since I do believe you are onto something here. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERFY Basically the article is moved to a sub-page of an users page. It is not indexed so it will not show up in search engines. Once we find a source that states it was N.H or E..P. we can add the additional sources I found. Then we can bring it back. If Paul does not want to take it on I will take it.09er (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - per comments above by 09er, until it can be cleared up what this person's role was on the team, the page shouldn't be listed with a fundamental error like that. Article can be improved and then reposted. If not, I'd suggest a merge to Franklin & Marshall athletics. Not clear why it needs its own article right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the decision, I offer to host the userfied page at User:Paulmcdonald\Skyles. Is "userfied" a word?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy This needs a rewrite + an accuracy check! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy to User:Paulmcdonald\Skyles per my comments above. 09er (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if Delete is the result, I would prefer redirect to List of Franklin & Marshall Diplomats head football coaches.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Paulmcdonald\Skyles without prejudice to article recreation after sourcing is sorted out, including determining the correct first name of the coach. FWIW, here is an obituary or Eugene P. Skyles, a F&M alum born in 1870 in Woodstock, NY. From what I glean from an F&M yearbook, "Eugene Pierre Skyles" is probably the "skyles" in question. The book here also has some biographical information on Eugene. Cbl62 (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and move on. For the record, I will note that any "new and improved" version of this article which is returned to article space will need to demonstrate the subject's notability per the general notability guidelines, which has not been done in this AfD. The issues here go way beyond simply establishing what the subject's correct initials and/or first name are, but the failure to even establish the subject's name is certainly a top-5 warning sign that the subject will probably fail critical notability analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building services architect[edit]

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

Fails WP:V: I'm not able to find reliable sources to corroborate the information presented here. Web and GBooks hits are either vacancies or WP clones. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building Services Architect closed as no consensus. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT I suppose until a better article can be made as this would seem keepable but if it's not set for article status yet, delete until it is. Pinging the only still active past user Kudpung. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only just found out about the article Building services engineering, which is slightly better sourced. We could redirect there. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said last time: Unreferenced, possibly unencyclop)edic. Is little more than a large dictionary definition.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister and Kudpung. Not enough revealed in searches to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just Chilling (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Boxing Association[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. They have a webpage, a facebook page, and some press releases on the web, but there doesn't seem to be any other coverage. WP:TOOSOON? ubiquity (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse 11:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete Relatively new creation with no indication of notability.Peter Rehse 11:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete - looked at the website and still can't figure out what it is. Maybe something for veterans? No coverage to speak of. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Only source is organization's own website.Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New minor boxing organization with no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joomsef[edit]

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

Highly unlikely to be any more notable now (given that searching finds only download sites, and no actual sources) than it was 7 years ago when the only existing source (which is the company that develops it) was added. Revent^talk 09:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't meet wikipedia notability standards. Only one source? That too it's own website? Please delete it. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for references since 2008. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Devilrock Four[edit]

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

Aussie pubrock band that has released two albums and two EPs. Judging by their Facebook page they have split up. References point to a local band that once toured Europe. I tried to search for more material, but besides a few gig adverts and a vague entry on allmusic.com I can't find anything. No significant coverage and no indication of any notability on a national scale. Karst (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in Rolling Stone in Italy, Ottobre 2009 [31]. This any good (Staff)? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this may amount to an acceptable article even though I haven't started looking closely. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has already acknowledged that they issued two albums and toured Europe. These cover criteria at WP:BAND #4 and #5. I've added refs and content to support those claims. I've added other content to address criteria #1 and #11. duffbeerforme has pointed to further international coverage, reinforcing the band's notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Article looks much better now. I would still have concerns about the labels that the two albums were released on. Also, the tour is mentioned but has no reference - were you able to find one? Karst (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had a ref for Euro tour in there... I've put two refs in, now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Leaning towards a weak keep now. Karst (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor What[edit]

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

Has no complete information. 114BryanKurt ^{Let's talk!} 07:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First episode on YouTube, 58 views. Not notable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Low views and a series should not have its own article Matt294069 is coming 00:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly speedily under A7 as web content. I've just speedied the article about the creator of this series. No indication of notability here. Peridon (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing on searches to show how it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Logic[edit]

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

Appears to be original research Oscarthecat (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Logic is a term that is catching on in Singapore used for people that create their own logic. Something like the Dunning-Kruger effect. Krazio (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Used here but unlikely in the sense that the article says. Apart from that I can't find any mention of the term anywhere, so it fails WP:GNG. @Krazio: if it's catching on you must have some sources to add? Who said it was like the Dunning-Kruger effect? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: alright understood. will do more research before creating articles. My Apologies. Krazio (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find the use of this term on my searches. Doesn't pass the general notability criteria.—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrocarbons on other planets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to have been originally created in the context of mining other planets for energy resources, not many sources on this are to be found. This angle has been removed from the article, leaving it an unfocused collection of facts already covered in atmosphere of Titan, atmosphere of Jupiter etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrej (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Extraterrestrial hydrocarbons and weak keep. It's not much now, but it's not so bad it has to be TNT'd. There are papers on the subject, e.g. Extraterrestrial Hydrocarbons and Petroleum Genesis, Properties of extraterrestrial hydrocarbons and theory of their genesis, Evidence for extraterrestrial amino-acids and hydrocarbons in the Murchison meteorite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 09:18, 19 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing there that would really be missed. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - poorly sourced given the technical nature of the content. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge into hydrocarbon or delete. In the article space, it is only linked from the hydrocarbon article, which is itself not particularly well developed. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't warrant a standalone article, not enough coverage in reliable sources.—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigwig (band)[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as I found no better sourcing than this and although the albums have some reviews, I'm questioning their solidity. Note this has existed since March 2006 with no much better change and improvement. Pinging Koala15, Paul Erik, Σ, Fayenatic london, Missvain, Stephenb and Dominic. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I googled bigwig punk and there is just enough to confirm notability; I've added the official website and 3 citations. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No real opinion. In 2006 - repeat 2006! - I nominated the article for speedy deletion (apparently) when it appeared little more than a vanity stub. No idea whether they have 'made it big' since then, but Fayenatic's changes have improved the article, I guess! Stephenb (Talk) 10:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also coverage from Rock Sound, Allmusic, Georgia Straight, Exclaim!. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As noted above, the subject has sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - of the above 6 references, the first citation added to the article is a bio on a site, which are usually provided by the artists themselves. The second is an interview on a fansite. The third is a nice review, so that goes to notability. Rocksounnd looks like a promo piece from the band, and it's not a reliable source. The Georgia Straight piece, while nice, is an interview, and therefore a primary source, which per guidelines shouldn't be used for notability. I can't open the last two citations (due to the filters of where I'm at at the moment), but based on the first four, I'm not holding out hope that they'll help show the band's notability. I'll check back tonight, and if the AfD is still open, will offer an opinion on those last two sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Sound is a well-known professional print magazine - what makes you think it's not a reliable source? Which one do think is a bio provided by the artists themselves? --Michig (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The website version of Rock Sound doesn't clearly state what their editorial controls, if any, are. The brief mention on the site reads like a promo directly from the band's pr person. The Allmusic a standard listing. Oh, and the punknews item is clearly a self-promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nerdpocalypse[edit]

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

Questionably notable as my searches simply found no better coverage and sourcing with the best being this and there's no obvious better improvement for this article from May 2012. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be covered by reliable sources. Google searches are limited to social networking sites and blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users NinjaRobotPirate, The1337gamer, Esquivalience, Czar, DMacks, Primefac and Salvidrim.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage in reliable. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and GNG. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Manilla[edit]

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

Questionably notable as my searches found nothing better than this and this hasn't changed much since starting in October 2011. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what the nomination says. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bearcat who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all sure what I have to offer here. Were he Canadian, I could fire up my ProQuest account to see if more newspaper coverage was available than what shows up in a Google News search — but for a British topic, I'm in the same Google boat as everybody else and have no special secret power to find any more sources than anybody else does. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of work in major collections, and the book, presumably of his photographs, One , is not even in WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jurek Wajdowicz[edit]

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

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

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 (biographies) requirement." It was deprodded by User:Joshmchugh (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD), so we are here. To reiterate, there are no reliable, in-depth sources about this individual to justify him passing WP:ARTIST: what is there are mentions in passing, particularly on affiliated galleries and some related brochures and such. The claim of "most influential graphic designer of the past 50 years" sounds nice, but the reliability of [32] is dubious, and anyway, all that was apparently needed for inclusion was... getting more than one vote. Overall, that's one of the weaker vanity bios I've seen in the last months - even Google News gives me only one mention in passing... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag Appears to be notable e.g.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/jurek-wajdowicz-liminal-spaces-fotografie75/oclc/868017182
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/27/nyregion/westchester-guide-polish-artists-unite.html

...I would suggest keep but tag for promotional. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SageGreenRider: The NYT mention is in passing, and does not satisfy GNG requirement for in-depth coverage. The book is a book (art book) by the subject ([33]), and does not help much as he clearly fails notability as a writer. His prime claim to notability is being a photographer (artist), but he fails WP:ARTIST. I am sorry, but those two links do not make me change my view on his notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Joshmchugh has added a bunch or awards and so on on the talk page Talk:Jurek_Wajdowicz#The case against deletion of Jurek Wajdowicz SageGreenRider (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but none of them seem notable. Now, granted, I am not an art expert, and I'd welcome input by someone who is, but "over 950 awards worldwide" - I wonder if it also includes awards from elementary school and onward? Seriously, not all awards make person notable. And the list seems designed to overwhelm, but provides very little proper citations. Entries 1 and 2 do not even include awards name. Entry 3 sounds nice - "American Photography Awards.", but there's only one Google hit: [34], the target link seems broken too. Not sure if he was nominated or won something, or such, but him winning the award received no coverage anywhere else. Even if he won, this award for example seems to be given to 300+ people yearly ([35]), and frankly, suggests to me that this and other awards are on the level of winning Wikipedia:Featured picture, or perhaps Commons:Picture of the Year. Nice, but does not merit The person's work... (c) has won significant critical attention criteria from ARTIST in my book. I certainly don't have time to review other awards on that list; unless someone here can argue that any of them satisfy the significant critical attention. (This also drives home the point we really need a list of all worldwide awards, with their notability-granting-of assessment, sigh).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I am wondering about the level of notability applied across wikipedia for various professions. The other day I happened across an article about a cricket player S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and AfD'd it. The sports fans here on wiki were unanimous that his achievement (to attempt to bat a ball in a single game on Feb 12, 1999 in the Galle International Stadium, Galle, Sri Lanka against Galle Cricket Club for his team Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club and score zero) was notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer). Beats me. SageGreenRider (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great point about the level of notability applied for various professions. In the field I'm interested in (design, contemporary art, media and photography) the KEEP decision for Wajdowicz is sort of obvious to me. To quote from the foreword of "Liminal Spaces" by professorFred_Ritchin, well-known expert in photography, Dean of Education at International Center of Photography and prominent writer on the subject: "...Seeing and looking are hardly the same. The riches reside as well in the parallel universes, those which conventional photography, quoting from appearance, hardly seem to take into account. In the hints and smatterings of shape in Wajdowicz’s own images, in his embrace of negative space, appearance manages to conceal itself, implying the gaps of the forever in-between. The engaged viewer can then infer ways to re-imagine, while Jurek’s lens argues for a less traveled space. It is no wonder that his imagery reads like jazz. In an adjacent universe Wajdowicz is also one of our foremost designers in active pursuit of human rights. The concentrated rigor of his design, his careful choice of photographers to investigate the world’s horrors, is constructed on a platform that can be said to be revealed by the images in this book. Underneath the excruciating deviations, the mass graves and obscene deprivations, there is a reminder of humanity’s potential for coherent complexity and grace. From the cacophony, as referenced in Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme,” Jurek’s judicious scalpel carves a space to contemplate what humans do to each other. But he also leaves open an uplifting possibility of what they, we, might instead choose to accomplish...". Hope it helps - Prahamediafanatic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prahamediafanatic (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would've helped - if they said it in a reliable source, and you provided bibliographic details to cite them. Sadly, you did not. Do ping me if you do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't simply find any significant coverage. Doesn't pass WP:BIO or GNG, delete.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wonder if the editors specializing in design and art, specifically in graphic design and photo-journalism, can weigh in here? Wajdowicz is a major figure in this field. Specific expertise in those fields is necessary to realize his creative input and influence. Also see: Talk:Jurek_Wajdowicz#The case against deletion of Jurek Wajdowicz SageGreenRider (talk)Prahamediafanatic (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking at more sources (and having received some messages from the subject), I think there may be at least one non-local, reliable source with in-depth coverage. The book "Liminal Spaces", which in the article/Google Books has a foreword/article by professor Fred Ritchin. It is, sadly, not available online (and most sources credit the subject, Wajdowicz, with sole authorship) even for a preview, but I think we can AGF that it is the case (WorldCat lists him as a foreword author, and it's a reliable source). The question, therefore, is is this source sufficient? To which I'd say it depends on its length. Is this indeed an article-long analysis of his work (academic articles have an average of 8k words), which would cause me to seriously consider withdrawing this nom, or is it a much shorter equivalent of a blurb? Can anyone verify how long this section is, or perhaps provide a link to a digital copy of the article? (For anyone in the States, check [36]; it does not work well for rest of the world, including my part of it). I also thought whether [37] meets WP:ARTIST 4b, but given it has no text to explain the works' significance, I am not convinced (the other entries at the bio article for where his works are held are unreferenced or less likely to meet the definition of "significant collection", IMHO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI bought my copy in Prague's art bookstore. I see it's in the library of Chicago Art Institute, Harvard U and the New York's Metropolitan Art Museum, among others. Piotrus: I found also this link - http://ewsimages.com/work/books/liminal-spaces/. Cheers, Prahamediafanatic (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Not an area the internet covers that well. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaz Banga[edit]

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

This entrepreneur seems to have kept himself busy, but doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least as WP:TNT as I'm not seeing any obvious better improvement from the currently unacceptable current version. Pinging MatthewVanitas. SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage to pass BIO or GNG, delete.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and in addition, fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF. The quantity of patents awarded does not match the quality. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Craig (comedian)[edit]

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

Non-notable performer; lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. References provided are IMDB, employers (not independent of subject), and publications merely mentioning performer without significant coverage. Wikipedical (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as the ending coverage is something but there's likely not much better. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Onel5969 and [email protected] who comment at these subject AfDs as they may be interested. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just not finding sources, at least, nothing significant. possibly WP:TOOSOON, but there should be news coverage of a notable comic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elderado Dingbatti[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. I'm not turning up references to make a viable article out of this topic. The current article is completely unreferenced, and written in-universe. (NB, I've also nominated the Coping With article; Dingbatti is a fictional character in that series. Mikeblas (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: So which did you also nominate, the book series or the award-wining television specials it inspired? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book series, as linked above. I don't see an article for the television specials; does one exist? WP:NBOOKS says that a book is notable if "made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form," but that seems like a tenous mechanism of notability. Thing is, I'm not finding support for the specials and series when I search, despite the unreferenced claims in this article that "they" (which?) have won "multiple" (how many?) awards (when?). -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to author Peter Corey. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was written by a single editor around 8 years ago, there haven't been any content edits since then. Google doesn't bring up anything that would indicate the topic is notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taste networking[edit]

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

Possible neologism. The sole source doesn't mention "taste networking" as a distinct subset of social networking. Google searches don't bring anything else up, so it fails WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and does really seem to be distinct from the type of social networking going on with Facebook and others.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puisseguin road crash[edit]

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

It's a simple accident with nothing else arising from it. I see no evidence of notability. This can also be seen from the article edits: within two days of the crash happening, there has been no more edits, a definite symptom of non-notability. Banedon (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with 43 deaths, condolences sent by the Pope, 5,000 marching in remembrance of the victims, and a funeral service attended by the President of France, it's more than a simple accident. The investigation is ongoing so there will be additional details. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. How is it more than a simple accident? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

43 deaths is not a simple accident. Additionally there is ongoing coverage[38], [39], [40] in addition to worldwide attention (note article exists in eight other languages). —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not much different from the recent Peru bus crash, also with international coverage.[41] In List of traffic collisions (2010–present) with many, many others which have no lasting effect. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Peru crash from March 2015 is not even on the list of collisions, so it's doubtful there was ever any consensus it should not have its own article. Go ahead and make one. Many, many accidents on the list have their own articles. This one from 2013 has its own article - 2013 Peru bus disaster. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage is a global who's who of WP:RS; fallout stage still to come. Vrac (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant road accident, WP:GNG is met. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Carlos Rivero[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 (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Tedinboston with the following rationale "proposed deletion template expired" which (coupled with that users mass deproddings around that time) suggest he misunderstands proposed deletion procedure (the templates are supposed to expire, and then said articles are reviewed by an admin who then decides whether to accept or decline the deletion). As in this case Ted expanded the article, we are at AfD. I don't feel that the new sources suffice to merit keep per WP:BIO. Referees are not auto-notable (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability), and he also fails WP:CRIMINAL (minor coverage of minor crime). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - arrest/suspension drew coverage from the NY times. USA Refereeing (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG - in addition to the Times article [42], [43], [44] Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And what makes those sources reliable? And it's WP:ONEVENT, all the same story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unemployment fraud is not a notable crime, thus WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL are failed. Per consensus, the position of referee is not inherently notable so WP:GNG must be met, which it is not. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydration is not a crime. Some of the references relate to his crime, but not all. Also such a minor offence would never be newsworthy if he wasn't a prominent ref to begin with. Meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Criminal activity whether guilty or not fails WP:CRIM as the individual has not committed a crime against a well known individual, nor is there any particularly unusual motivation for the crime. No indication that his refereeing activities have generated significant reliable coverage of themselves (as opposed to routine coverage that he refereed one match or another). Seems an obvious WP:BLP1E article and not even sa particularly interesting 1E at that either. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that per the discussion, I have renamed the article to List of places with eruvin, which provides a more accurate and descriptive title for the article relative to its content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of eruvin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lists of notable things are good ways to collect articles on Wikipedia. This is not a list of notable things; it's a catalog, and Wikipedia is not a catalog. None of the sites or structures on this list are notable enough for their own article, so this is really just a collection of external links and a maintenance chore for Wikipedia. Similarly, Wikipedia is not a directory. The links are rotting, and that debatably means that the list has on real criteria--some are added, some aren't, and there's no standard for inclusion other than someone found a reference for the structure and thinks it exists. This information is available elsewhere on the internet (even in list form), and the main eruv article can link to those lists if wants to reference this information. Mikeblas (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list has clearly defined selection criteria, per WP:LSC. Additionally, the narrow scope of the list complies with WP:SALAT. The argument that many of the eruvs don't meet WP:GNG is a red herring; WP:LSC explains that "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles". Likewise, the argument that the list is poorly sourced is also misplaced. Per WP:ATD, the solution is to find better sources ("If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page"). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, the referencing state goes directly to notability as third-party references are what establish notability, per WP:GNG. That guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Of the verifiable referenes in this list, the vast majority of those provided are from primary sources and are not independent of the subject. I'm convinced that the lack of good references is endemic to the non-notability of the subject(s), and therefore editing will not improve the list.

The inclusion criteria might be clear, but it is indiscriminate: essentially any eruv that was ever recognized is included; not the largest, or most important, or most recognizable, or those that contributed to historic events; there's no discerning criteria, so the list is indiscriminate. Because Wikipedia is not a catalog, a reasonable criteria must be given such that only encyclopedic content is included. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a list of eruvin; it's a list of places that have eruvin, which is not the same thing. There is not a single eruv that is notable enough to have an article on WP and I don't know of any article that permits a list of things of which ZERO have articles. There is an eruv set up in almost every place with a decent sized Jewish community. Not every single thing needs a list. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, I think the question of whether this is (1) a list of eruvin or (2) a list of places that have eruvin is a distinction without a difference, but would your vote change if the title was changed to "list of places with eruvin" (or something like that)? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with this list is not its title. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not with the title. It's the notability. Eruvin are utilitarian things set up in Jewish neighborhoods - it is literally a technical boundary, that is not disputed or fought over with people shooting from the other side, etc. There's just no notability there.. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Мандичка if this is as commonplace as described. Seems to be little more discriminate than List of places with synagogues. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many of those lists actually: [45] FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NOTESAL, all that is required is "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Also per WP:CSC: "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles." It has been discussed as a group in numerous places, including these books: [46], [47], [48] and so on. Also the list is clearly useful to readers, and isn't indiscriminate. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having a list of X is acceptable in the Wikipedia community. In addition, I think it's notable enough that there is such a large list of places where eruvin exist, that is something to consider as well. Many of those places went through obstacles to get an eruv, and while in the main eruv article is not warranted a mention, it does deserve to be listed as a list of eruvin. And contrary to what was posted above, I am sure that there are some individual eruvin that do deserve their own individual entry on Wikipedia. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikimandia. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notecardforfree and Yossiea. This is a valuable list for Jews who want to know which cities have eruvin. If many of the refs are primary, it is a simple matter to find secondary refs for them. In fact, I'm adding another one right now. Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a WP:N subject important to/for Category:Shabbat, and fits into good WP:CLNT, it has lots of WP:RS & WP:CITE, and some need updating (that's what happens the older WP gets and the longer "older" sources are not updated by newer editors). In any case, see also WP:NOTPAPER, and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Note also the excellent arguments that resulted in resounding Keeps in the 2 prior AFDs in 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eruvin) and 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities with eruv). Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elixirr[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable consultancy, fails WP:CORP. Article apparently created and maintained by people associated with the company, consists almost exclusively of a list of mostly non-notable awards. I've been unable to find any in-depth coverage, though there are a number of passing mentions, and a good number of press releases hosted on Consultancy.uk and RealWire. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless properly sourced, this deserves to be deleted. The only section with references doesn't tell much about the subject's background. Alexius08 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI-created award spamming (most of them of questionable notability and independence) instead of sourced encyclopedic coverage about the company's real activities and history. Some PR activity via Google, but no independent reliable sources found. GermanJoe (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, i've suggested edits in the Elixirr Talk page which I think address the lack of external notable references. As well I can see the company has been referenced in several large and genuine publications - including The Guardian, The Independent, Retail Weekly, Fresh Business Thinking and Startups HSVD (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)HSVD[reply]

This list contains articles or interviews from Mr. Newton about himself, his company and his economic ideas. Those sources are fine to verify Mr. Newton's own statements, but they are not suitable to establish notability (in Wikipedia's sense of the term). The article needs independent sources with in-depth coverage about Elixirr, not just mere repetitions of statements from Elixirr. That's a crucial difference. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more week to improve quality
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wikienglish123 (talk) 02:14, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. 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. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemunews[edit]

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

News website for town of 13,000 fails WP:NWEB. Sources are itself, two similar websites from the same town (one of which is defunct), and a mention in a government document where it received a two thousand-dollar subsidy. Deleted from eswiki for lack of notability. Vrac (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Local online-only newspaper of tiny village. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm simply not seeing any better improvement unless this can be mentioned at the local community's article. Pinging past user Brianhe and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per common practice this should be redirected to the Media section of Pichilemu, rather than deleting 191.112.114.141 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, a Chilean IP whose first edit is to this AFD, who could it be? If the consensus is to delete, it gets deleted. That is the common practice. Vrac (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is not notable. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 16:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Acquisition University[edit]

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

Advert (with possible copyvios per the other articles) needing a decision to move to draft space before it is deleted out of frustration with promo articles with (almost) exclusive use of primary sources. Nomming to gather wider opinion with suggestion to move to Draft. Widefox; talk 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can possibly be stubbified, but is best started over like the others. I would absolutely not move it to draft space--anyone wanting to use it could do just as well using the website for the basic information, and the no need to preserve the fluff. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be notable but it was so clearly written by someone looking to promote the "university" that this needs to be TNT'd. It would take longer to fix it than it would to just rewrite. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So this article is notable, but it should be deleted because of laziness? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone arguing the subject is definitely notable. Please see WP:TNT to understand the comments in support of deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose giving it a "WP" identity classes it up a tad, however, I fail to see a difference in its eventual outcome. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noms comment Hmm, after seeing comments, to clarify this is WP:TNT. Even WP:BATHWATER has Spam/Blatant advertising as delete. If my suggested draft-ify compromise isn't useful, then second choice is delete. Widefox; talk 09:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but stubbify. Subject is probably notable, but borderline TNT candidate. I am willing to do the pruning, if there is support for this approach.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Hand, have time to do this nowish? to ward off outcome of closed no-consensus, and no action. Have to say, well done to volunteer, although I'm against the principle per WP:BOGOF. Widefox; talk 16:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wanted to see if there was support for that approach before I committed time to it. I'm also not a big fan of BOGOF, but this article is in my general area of interest.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the promotional material cut. The subject appears to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after pruning. I'll slim down the use of buzzwords which annoy me most. Thank you, nominator, for bringing this to general attention. -- econterms (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too promotional. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Econterms and I have worked on the article and heavily pruned the jargon and promotional material. It still needs work (including more 3rd party sources), but I hope it's past the WP:TNT stage.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks good now. Ceosad (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Good job, Mojo Hand! The article's in decent shape now. The subject is notable: a surprisingly large, unique government institution with >100K past students. -- econterms (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems similar to a lot of government education programs (Defense Information School for instance. JCO312 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - although at present it appears to fail WP:GNG, as it lacks evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If that can't be found, I would support merging to DoD article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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