Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 November	5 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 Move to Draft:Hummer Team. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer Team[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:NORG. I can find a lot of blog and wiki material on this group but there is nothing in reliable sources. Maybe there is something in offline gaming magazines. Jbh ^Talk 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to DRAFT:Hummer Team with a stipulation that it not be moved into article-space without either an WP:AFC review or a WP:Deletion review and that a notice (such as an {{afc comment}}) be put at the top of the draft article pointing back to this AFC. This is a brand-new (less than a week old) article. Deleting a newly-created page when it should be sent to Draft: space is WP:BITEy.
Procedural comment: @Ethan The Cool Guy and Jbhunley: if both of you find moving to DRAFT: acceptable AND there are no other significant editors of the page or its talk page AND there is nobody here who expresses that indicates they might object to moving the page, Jbhunley can speedy-close this as "withdrawn - unanimous consent from all affected editors to move this to draft" (along with a touch of WP:Ignore all rules to keep the wiki-lawyers at bay ). If there are any objections or anyone with a stake in the game doesn't affirmatively consent, the discussion will need to run the usual 7 days though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: No objection in principle, see below. If @Ethan The Cool Guy: does not object and no one !votes something other than 'Userfy' in the interim, I will ask an admin to close it as Userfy and move it to Draft: space, just to keep everything clear from a procedural perspective. Jbh ^Talk 00:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Update. Jbh ^Talk 00:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the original author is paying much attention to the article. The creation of the article in one edit is their only edit to Wikipedia [1] and they did not respond to a PROD [2] I placed three days ago. The article was deproded [3] by an IP doing mass deprods as discussed here. I do not know if this affects your suggestion. Jbh ^Talk 00:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of the PROD template is legitimate. As stated above, deleting a newly-created page when it should be sent to Draft: space is WP:BITEy. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your removal is within the policy for PROD, that is why I took the article to AFD. Your removal was counterproductive since you obviously have no intention of doing anything to improve this article or the others you dePRODDed. You did not even leave any reason you why they should be kept or how they might be improved. PRODs are much less bitey than AfD but you took the author's ability to show they had not abandoned the article away with your little deprod campaign.
Consensus in this [4] ANI thread is that it is WP:POINTy and borderline disruptive as it was in this [5] ANI discussion when you were doing it as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:F07A:973D:2CFD:EEE6, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E and 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 a few days ago. Also an editor who creates an article with only one edit, includes a template a new user is very unlikely to know about and makes no further edits is not very likely to be a newbie. More likely they are either a banned user, a paid SOCK or someone evading scrutiny. Although not many people want to evade scrutiny for creating an article of questionable notability that is usually reserved for people who are trying to do other things. Jbh ^Talk 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft - an appropriate response. bd2412 T 17:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Keep" votes don't put forward any policy-based arguments for retaining the article, instead focusing on WP:ILIKEIT-esque personal recollections and vague talk of a 'border'. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Park[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as it seems she's likely best known for about 60 episodes of Go Girls and there's nothing to suggest keeping a separate article; the best my searches found only this and this. Pinging past user MarnetteD, interested subject users MichaelQSchmidt, [email protected] and Davey2010 as well as New Zealand users Stuartyeates, Grutness, Gadfium and Angry Bald English Villian Man. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak to medium keep. I didn't watch Go Girls, but I remember her from Burying Brian and Street Legal. She's borderline, perhaps, but above the border rather than below it IMO. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the NZ On Screen ref is not independent, since it's a government funding NZ-film promotion agency. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: on the notability of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why I am keeping it because she used to be on Shortland Street playing the Evil Mackenzie Choat. I remember seeing her play Britta's mother Fran McMann and also Go Girls used to be my favorite show. --Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Can't find anything on her, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG, (I've just realized it looks like she passes NACTOR.). –Davey2010^Talk 09:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity - the actress herself made a few dozen edits. MiracleMat (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While I wouldn't really condone someone editing an article about themselves, the majority of what she did was to turn a raw list into a table, and to collapse two sections into one more well-edited one. The article was already there - at close to its current length - before she started editing it, and if I wasn't aware of the editor's name, I wouldn't have guessed it fell under WP:COI. Not really what would normally qualify as vanity posting. Grutness...wha? 04:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar to Grutness, borderline but just over the border, for notability. MurielMary (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above weak, but still a keep. Mattlore (talk) 08:39, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Padilla (DJ)[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 this and I simply see nothing better. Pinging past users Jerzy and Kvng and also interested subject users Michig, Walter Görlitz, Vrac, Crystallizedcarbon and Noyster (como estamos mis tres hermanos Españoles? ). SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: music articles aren't really my thing but I'll point out that es:José Padilla (dj) was deleted from eswiki in 2008 for lack of notability; and the French and German articles are badly translated versions of the enwiki article. Vrac (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't recall how it drew my attention. This 2-edit diff clarifies my lack of topic-specific knowledge.
--Jerzy•t 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, and FWIW note removal of (BTW unsourced) content, probably only bcz of a false notion (that he was the terror-involved JP) seemed to rule out its continuing validity!
--Jerzy•t 19:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hola Amigo SwisterTwister , I must confess that I also don't have much knowledge on this subject so I don't feel qualified to cast a vote in this case. I found a reliable source from a local newspaper, but personally based on the current state of the article and on what I could find I would lean towards delete as in my view I don't think there is enough in-depth coverage to meet notability requirements, and I don't know if been a resident DJ at a popular club is enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Un abrazo.--Crystallized C (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received a Latin Grammy nomination in 2002 (I added it to the article with a source provided). Erick (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Padilla has his own entry at Colin Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music and there is ample coverage of his Café del Mar series of compilations. Neodop (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Padilla has a recent FACT documentary largely about him and his legacy: [6]Jmejia (talk) 02:37, 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 00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiran Chatterjee[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this and this and the current version is especially unacceptable, looking like a personal page. This also has hardly changed since starting in December 2008. Notifying author Borfee and also interested subject users Yash!, SpacemanSpiff, MichaelQSchmidt, Human3015 and AKS.9955. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS of sources found using WP:INDAFD: "Hiran Chatterjee"

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ENT, and WP:POLITICIAN. Encourage sourcing thorugh participation of the interested Wikiprojects. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons as Schmidt above. Article needs to be improved (especially addition of references) rather than deleted. JS (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt. Ya sh ! 05:01, 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 18:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C Earth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources found to show the notability of this software. No obvious redirect possible since we do not have an article on the software company C Studio. Appears to be case of WP:PROMOTION, particularly since the article creator has licensed the company logo images as his or her own work. I have found the website for the company responsible for this software at http://www.chiakistudio.com/ . The portfolio section of the page states that C earth is "Under Development" and "coming soon" suggesting that the software is not even released yet. Meters (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was initially significantly longer, but the copyvio material has been removed. Almost all of the removed material was general info on Augmented Reality and was not specific to this software. Meters (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is categorized as Category:Upcoming products, confirming that the software has not been released yet. Meters (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better yet. Pinging tagger De la Marck. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to fix this article, but gave up long ago.Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Obviously created by a employee of C Earth for advertising/promotion. MiracleMat (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional piece for non-notable (per searches) company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 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 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breck Stewart[edit]

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

—Non-Notable porn star and singer, no independent reliable sources. Article comes off as promotional and was seemingly created by subject link and maybe have been edited by others connected to him as some of the other edits were done by usernames that mostly or solely edited this article.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BLP without a single independent reliable source. All the references in the article are published by the subject, are advertising for the subject, or are from IMDB. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging past users GermanJoe and Guy1890. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do yourself a favor my friend and stop pinging people at AfD. That's what article alerts are for. Guy1890 (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two albums, Reality show MoonDaze TV 2011. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two albums have gotten no mainstream press or even mentioned by the porn press, nor has it charted on any of the notable music charts. The "Reality show" MoonDaze TV was made by Stewart himself and uploaded to his youtube channel only. It also has no coverage elsewhere. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-released albums and self-produced, self-posted youtube videos which receive no independent coverage don't support any claim of notability. The faux TV program averages about 1K views per episode, which makes the subject perhaps 10% as notable as the average YouTube cat. Purrhaps Subtropical-man will next improve the encyclopedia by writing bios of Mittens (kitten), Scrunchytail, Mrs. Whiskerlicker, and Oopy, felines who are far more prominent in the YouTube realm of "reality TV" than this subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, above arguments are convincing. I withdraw my vote for keep. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:11, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleader Diaries[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "I would have thought this might have been a hoax, since searches on Newspapers, Books, Highbeam, JSTOR, and Scholar turned up zero hits, but there was a single trivial mention on News. There's a ton of hits on a regular search, but they all deal with a porn film series of the same name."

This amounts to failing WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete PROD was not actually contested; a case of apparent vandalism. No sources, no notability - deserves a quick removal. Scr★pIron^IV 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point but I am assuming good faith on behalf of the IP editor who deprodded it. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither a sockpuppet nor a vandal. Please strike that statement from your explanation. Thank you, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If you had a reason to delete the PROD, you would have given a keep vote here, rather than whining about some perceived slight. So, no, I won't strike it. You, however, are free to return to your home under the bridge. Scr★pIron^IV 22:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the editor who prodded it. No rationale was given for the contested Prod. My reasons for delete are stated in my reasoning for the initial prod. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not ready to !vote here, but if this [7] is the subject (and is accurate) it's got at least a low-grade claim to notability. Several of the actors have articles, although their notability may also be questionable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the point, I think, HW - we can't really be sure from what has been provided that it actually is the subject of the article. Yes, there is the external link - but no reference. Scr★pIron^IV 22:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IMDB page [8] provides the Hulu connection. It looks to me like a low-production-cost Hulu series that went down virtually without a trace. Likely a borderline case, with a generic title that makes sorting through sources unusually time-consuming. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all tv shows and such are notable, and IMDb is not a sufficient source - we need to show this got coverage somewhere else. See also WP:TVSHOW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skow for Girlfriends Films[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails the general notability guideline. PROD removed by a serial de-prodder who is giving the articles no actual consideration. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete PROD was not actually contested; a case of apparent vandalism. No sources, no notability - deserves a quick removal. Scr★pIron^IV 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Go strike yourself. Place yourself between your shoes and your feet. Walk on your own soles. Any old way, post your graffiti to someone else's comments. Scr★pIron^IV 22:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion regarding this sock's vandalism of removing prod tags. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The studio won the award for Best New Line. And I'm not sure how the other prodder came to the conclusion that it isn't a real studio; in addition, as the creator, I was never notified of the original prod. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't notified because you've said to several users, myself included, that you don't want us posting anything to your talk page, courtesy notices included. This was your less-than-civil response the last time an editor on your hit list (an admin, in fact) did so.[9]. Don't complain when other editors comply with your requests. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying that about courtesy notices, but if I don't want to be bothered by you, maybe that means you should, I don't know...recuse yourself from trying to delete articles I created? More importantly though, the last time I checked, Best New Line is an award given to a studio, not a "marketing tagline". And if you want more sources that indeed identify it as a studio, try [10][11] [12]. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Erpert, I don't want to be bothered by you. So are you going to stay out of deletion discussions I initiate, like this one, which began with my PROD? In fact, I don't want to be bothered by anybody who disagrees with me, so . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the logic of my original PROD. None of the cited sources identify the article subject as a studio, and the award announcement states the studio involved was "Girlfriends Films". This is just a marketing tagline for a non-notable porn director. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Girlfriends Films as, per the above highlighted links, it appears that "Skow for Girlfriends Films" appears to be some part of that much more well-known, parent adult film company. Guy1890 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a couple of sentences and a list. Can we please WRITE an article before creating one??? MiracleMat (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 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 speedily deleted by User:DGG under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MRK Thirumana Mahal[edit]

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

An unreferenced article about a wedding hall with absolutely no indication of notability, nor could any be found. Buildings do not appear to be eligible for speedy deletion and PROD was contested without explanation. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to WP:GEOFEAT, "Buildings ... can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I see neither coverage nor an assertion of notability here. ubiquity (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author has added blatant spam to the article so it is now also nominated for speedy deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:45, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junaidu Gambo Gurbin Bore[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. He's nothing but a man doing is job. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 29 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 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A worthy person, but no indication of notability in Wikipedia's sense. This is one of series about people from Gurbin Bore, characterised by lack of notability and deadlink "references". See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbakahr. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 -- article creator is indef-blocked as a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbakahr. --Finngall ^talk 14:42, 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 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master P, Nigeria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable, he has been a producer with a purpose, he has been helping young and talented people to acheive their aims in life. Although he's of low notability. But he deserves it Cogstobi [*_*] 12:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete. There are lots of good people out there, but Wikipedia is not a webhost for nice people. Currently, there are no reliable sources to prove notability generally, much less as a musician. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 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 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Non-notable actor, musician. JTtheOG (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass either WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Carleton[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable person. Suspected undisclosed paid advocacy, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delzem. MER-C 21:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 4 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 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging tagger Josve05a and also LaMona who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you David, for uploading your resume to wikipedia. MiracleMat (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 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 04:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWDRAFT[edit]

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

Non-notable product from non-notable company. Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTDIR ubiquity (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 4 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 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a software product, by a WP:SPA account whose contributions have been to write the article and remove the Prod notice. There is no claim to attained notability in the article, nor are searches turning up anything which would serve. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply not much and anything to suggest better here, WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 08:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches shows it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 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 04:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore Museum of Velventos[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this is WP:NOTABLE. I could find proof that it exists but nothing to indicate it can meet our guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains a set of reliable secondary sources. A simple google search indicates a dozen websites dedicated to this museum. JAGUAR 16:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are websites that mention its existence, yes, but its notability? Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jaguar. When dealing with museums in non-English-speaking nations, it is going to be more difficult to source. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News returns zero hits. As do Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR. In fact, this is one of the few AfD submissions I've seen where there have been zero hits across all the search engines. A simple web search does show that the museum exists, but there isn't a single in-depth article about it there, either, so it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Believing that there are sources out there which are difficult to find doesn't mean they exist. According to policy, this should be deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing reliable even with four different online searches. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 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 19:26, 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 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AM She 2011[edit]

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

Article without sources conform WP:RS. Article gives no extra information compared with the mother article I AM She – Miss Universe India, so is superfluous. The Banner talk 19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless WP:CFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:34, 29 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 19:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Look at the 2010 response. Matt294069 is coming 00:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only thing this article has which the main one doesn't is a list of contenders, but not sure that should be included anyway. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AM She 2010[edit]

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

Incomplete article without sources conform WP:RS. Article give no extra information compared with the mother article I AM She – Miss Universe India, so is superfluous. The Banner talk 19:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless WP:CFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 29 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 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because their is usually meant for no national finals for Miss Universe Matt294069 is coming 00:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom's rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 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 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Moriarty[edit]

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

References don't support notability - all are primary. Working for an organization does not confer notability. The company and co-founders he left IGN for was recently deleted by AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Gettys).Peter Rehse (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:58, 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 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If someone can dig up better sources, I'll reconsider, but currently all that's in the article is a bunch of first-party accounts from Youtube and social media. He once wrote for a notable subject (IGN) but we generally don't have pages for individual writers of publications. Not sure if any redirect makes sense - he's no longer at IGN and isn't mentioned anywhere in the article currently, and his current gig, Kinda Funny, was recently deleted at AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) I'd support a redirect to Greg Miller (Internet celebrity) as a useful search term. czar 23:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czar I'm not even sure I'd recommend the Greg Miller redirect, that article is sourced largely to Youtube videos and first party accounts too. Doesn't seem built to last either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that it isn't worth a prolonged discussion, but since redirects are cheap and it's a valid search term (shows up several times in that article), I say why not. If Miller is deleted, its redirects are automatically deleted. czar 16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True - and I think Miller will be put up for deletion soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not show they pass WP:GNG. Have no problem with the redirect as per Czar's rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomes of Zürich[edit]

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

Essentially a dictionary entry, see WP:NOTDICT, and based on only one source. Details about origin and usage, etc., should go to Wiktionary, while a brief mention of the term and its history can be made at Banking in Switzerland, which is where people would look for this. Sandstein 18:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep People will obviously look for information about the Gnomes of Zürich using this selfsame phrase, which is the natural title. The BBC article is a substantial source and is nothing like a dictionary entry – no single word, no spelling, grammar or etymology. It is easy to find more sources such as the Encyclopedia of Business in Today's World and so the notability of the topic seems clear. Note also that the Gnomes also get involved in medical matters and so there is no single satisfactory place to merge this. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 29 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 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a long established phrase and there's scope for an article here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added 10 cite books and you could easily add 20-30 more. The term obviously has importance far beyond a dictionary definition and is easily sourced well above WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:04, 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 04:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TechSandBox[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Another attempt to advertise a non-notable business Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 3 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 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article sourced to a blog entry and the enterprise's own site. There is a 2013 piece largely about this firm in the Boston Globe ([13] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but I see that as local coverage of a firm going about its business rather than demonstrating encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing turned up in the search engines to show they meet notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel day pass[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Right now this is simply a term used in tourism. If people start writing essays and articles in WP:RS about the general sociological phenomenon of the "hotel day pass" and its implications, it might eventually pass WP:GNG someday, but this hasn't happened yet. --Djembayz (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 4 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 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy if needed as this may conceivably be an article in the future but now as there's nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale. WP:NOTDIC applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Can be mentioned and briefly explained in more general articles like hotels, cruises, etc. Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:26, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Prasad Saikia[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable because the best my searches immediately found was this, this and this and this has stayed basically the same since December 2006. Pinging Bishnu Saikia. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Yash!, AKS.9955 and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Google search came back with only one source. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:42, 3 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 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not sufficient evidence as either journalist or author. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any notable facts about the person. The article mentions that he held "numerous senior and vital positions" in the Government of Assam. However, I am unable to determine which. If the specific positions were to be discovered and if they were to be notable, I'd change my !vote. As per now, just doesn't seem notable. Ya sh ! 05:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he appears to have been a run of the mill civil servant. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing in support of notability. Yash's comment is pertinent, and if other sources were to show he held a notable position, that would make a difference. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 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) 02:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Háttér Society[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as my searches of "Háttér Society" found links at News, Books and browser and this has not improved since I tagged after it started in March 2012. Notifying Bearcat and author Tdombos. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:12, 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 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep The article in the deWP is by a reliable editor on LGBT topics, and the deWP has at least as high standards in the area as we do. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
Keep, it's a prominent LGBT civil organization in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organisation is clearly notable. Would be good to hear from Hungarian editors or those with understanding of Hungarian. Has received some mentions in English language books as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 November 2015‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagram (Indian band)[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable band as I found nothing to suggest better improvement with my best search links here, here, here, here and here. This also has not changed much since starting in March 2007. Pinging Trinidade, Titodutta and Amog. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Yash!, AKS.9955 and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm busy on some other project of Wikipedia. I will provide sources for notability of this band later. But I'm making quick comment just because I'm big fan this band. It is a band fronted by Vishal Dadlani. It is a popular band in India among English pop music lovers. One can see their songs on VH1 frequently. Obviously I will not say "keep" just because I am fan of this band, but I will provide sources after sometime. If I fail to provide then it can be considered for deletion if other editors think so.--Human3015^TALK 06:39, 3 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 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as popular well known band. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Seems to barely meet WP:NBAND. Vishal, a very popular music figure in India is part of the band and the band, on performing a Google search, seems to have received pretty good coverage in various sources. Also, they have been performing at major music festivals in the country (Google results). The problem with articles on Indian bands is that there are no specific charts for the albums and singles released, no prominent award ceremonies and such, so the way we perceive notability with them becomes quite different. Ya sh ! 04:13, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K. L. Dhammajoti[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable because all my searches found absolutely nothing better than this and the current version would need to be improved so unless there are some local archived sources, there's not much to suggest keeping this basically unchanged article from December 2009. Pinging Aiodh, Phil Bridger and Abductive. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:11, 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 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets WP:PROF--endowed professorship at University of Hong Kong. Head of a notable College about which we have an article. Holder of a visiting chair a University of Calgary,for which there is reliable documentation . People in his field are sometimes impossible to document here unless they become connected with the Western academic system--fortunately, he has DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree that he doesn't pass WP:GNG through the search engines, as per DGG, he definitely passes WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 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 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nipples (Cartoon Boyfriend album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album by alt band —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:10, 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 19:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to the band. There's an Allmusic review but little other coverage. Nothing else to suggest an article on the album is justified. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a very brief review in CMJ New Music Monthly, but it's barely more than one sentence. I guess I'm leaning toward deletion, but maybe someone can find better/more reviews. Redirection to the band would also be fine, as long as that article survives AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM, and searches didn't show it passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WuGeo[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable software as my searches found nothing better than this and this simply has not improved since starting in October 2008 with only basic information. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up incidental mentions and wikipedia scrapers but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 04:14, 29 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 19:19, 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 12:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tandi Iman Dupree[edit]

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

appears to be only known for a minor viral video. It's possible the video could be notable, but I can't find anything to support notability for individual. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:01, 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 19:08, 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 12:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blame It On the Game[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Tagged for notability for two years. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:01, 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 19:07, 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 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat Viswanathan[edit]

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

one of the executives of company that is borderline notable at best -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LatentView and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pramad Jandhyala . The interview used as the principal reference is primarily promotional. Writing articles about a borderline notable company and each of its founders is usually a promotional technique. No other notability outside the company. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books, browser and WP:INDAFD all found links but nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:01, 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 19:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there is a good Times of India article, that's about it for good sources. That single feature article is not enough for WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON applies here. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 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. Treating as an expired PROD due to lack of participation and no objections/improvements in several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Recognition Association[edit]

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

This article has been pretty much stagnant since 2011 and has one reference. Attempts to find more references to support the notability of the organization weren't successful. There are plenty of sources as in the ELs section saying so-and-so won an award, but nothing saying why the award itself is notable. The Awards and Recognition Association Sportsmanship Award is mentioned often, and there is one NYT article in the ELs, but really need a deletion debate to determine how this impinges on the org. Brianhe (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case as I see no obvious and convincing improvement and this has actually existed since June 2008. Pinging the only seemingly interested user Wilhelmina Will. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:00, 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 18:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stunnah[edit]

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

non-notable song by Nicole Richie that never went anywhere —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:59, 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 18:58, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Dallas Smith[edit]

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

Had BLPPRODed this previously, PROD was removed. Article lacks any evidence of notability. Google search turns up IMDB, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. Article needs non-trivial references to multiple independent reliable verifiable sources to demonstrate some real-world notability. Existence ≠ Notability. KDS4444^Talk 07:39, 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 18:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was an easy PROD and even likely speedy and should've gone that way but delete anyway as there's simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as utterly non-notable waste of cyberspace. Quis separabit? 14:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Rose[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial reliably sourced biographical content. Tendentiously deprodded by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Fails GNG with coverage coming from republished press releases in the porn trade press. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Cavarrone 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging interested subject user Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stunning as she is unfortunately looks don't count towards notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator's analysis. Finnegas (talk) 18:42, 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. Graham87 05:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khunying Thongtip Ratanarat[edit]

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

Not notable. Her actual notability is apparently of the basis of who she is married to. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better improvement can be made. Pinging Kudpung who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep: "From 1985 to 2005 she was Executive Director of the Petroleum Institute of Thailand" and the non-inheritable noble title Khunying demonstrates the unusually high position of Thongtip Ratanarat in Thai society. Generally, we should keep the objectives of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Asian_Month in mind, when we assess the notability of Asian female company directors. The Petroleum Institute of Thailand is clearly a world-class neutral, independent, non-profit organization and therefore the notability of its co-founder and former female director should not be disputed. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No action until and unless a decision is taken by the jury of WAM. So deletion tag for an article being submitted in a contest is unwarranted. Besides, organizer(s) of WAM holds the page with marking of "N" then user proposing deletion may re-tag the deletion temp. Nannadeem (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thai name is ทองทิพย์ รัตนรัตน์. The sources provided in the article are only listings and an autobiography. She may well be a respected academic in her circles but searches for sources in English and Thai reveal only a faculty CV and the usual raft of sn sites. Notability is not asserted. WAM is an ad hoc editathon and its jury has absolutely no juristiction here -the article does not even comply with the WAM's own rules. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually ทองทิพย์ รัตนะรัต. See my comments below. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ her also as judge of the Platts Global Energy Awards and main author of the Population policy background paper.... --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the extra boldface "keep" !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has been covered in-depth in a ten-page interview in the Kasetsart Engineering Journal,[14] and a biographical article in the Investment Promotion Journal,[15] thus satisfying the GNG. Also has received an honorary PhD from Kasetsart University for her work.[16] The original AfD rationale, of notability based on marriage, is faulty. Plenty of news articles quote or mention her in her roles as a petrochemical expert, especially during the 2013 Rayong oil spill. While these don't directly establish notability, they provide indirect evidence of her authority in the field. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've renamed the article to Thongtip Ratanarat. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has improved a lot and now her own notability is shown and not just derived from her husband. There are portraits about her as an example of a successful Thai female manager and – as User:Paul 012 has said – she has been quoted by news agencies as a petrochemical expert. Btw: the "Population policy background paper" of which she is the main author, is cited in the Historical Dictionary of Thailand (2nd ed.). Perhaps User:Kudpung wants to rethink his "vote" since the article has changed? --RJFF (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It now looks like a pass of WP:GNG on her own merits rather than an attempt at inherited notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 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 per WP:A7 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Zannat[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:49, 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.

Leona Tuttle[edit]

The result was delete and rest in peace Ms Tuttle (non-admin close Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 16:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently nonnotable (I could find no sources other than the single one in the article) and her life was utterly pedestrian i.e. there's nothing worth saying about her in the article, other than that she lived a long time. WP:NOPAGE EEng (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is article is a paraphrase of a single obituary. And since the link is dead, we don't even know if it's an accurate paraphrase. For all we know, it could be, on the one hand, inaccurate or, on the other hand, a copyright violation. More importantly, it fails our general notability guideline - as longevity alone is not notable - our rule requiring significant coverage in multiple independent sources, WP:NOT (specifically WP:MEMORIAL) and WP:NOPAGE. Please make it go away. David in DC (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently [User talk:EEng] and [User:David in DC] didn't actually bother checking for articles about Mrs. Tuttle, or they are simply not experienced enough to find such articles...

SWFL woman celebrates 110th birthday (NBC 2, 14 April 2006)

An afternoon with Leona Tuttle (Naples Daily News, 11 May 2006)

Leona Tuttle, Detroit Woman who loved to dance, travel dies at 111 (The Detroit News, 8 December 2007)

So Mrs. Tuttle was featured in the media at least three times, and likely several more as well. 930310 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. She was never the oldest living person in the U.S., much less the world, and she has no other claims to fame. There are thousands of supercentenarians, and obviously they can't all have their own articles. Having multiple sources only indicates media interest; it means nothing if the content doesn't establish clear notability per WP:NOPAGE. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand-alone article. Not opposed to a selective merge/redirect elsewhere if there's an appropriate target. (She was not, I presume, "validated" by the Gerontology Research Group, or she would be at List of supercentenarians from the United States? -- I didn't know about that requirement for inclusion until just now and admittedly have not looked closer). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, the idea that GRG should have some special status as gatekeeper for articles/lists about the very old is perhaps the lynchpin of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN that is longevity-related articles on WP -- see e.g.[[17]]. EEng (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Obone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 16:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Gabon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 16:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMODEL and GNG. Sources are low quality (Instagram and Missosology). Independent search for reliable sources gets only passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A BLP must have sources conform to WP:RS and WP:GNG. Both cases fail. The Banner talk 23:52, 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 – nomination withdrawn Harrias ^talk 20:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Brown (musician)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Unsourced. Dweller (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A noted conductor, and a key figure in the development of youth orchestras in post-war Britain. The article obviously needs a lot of work (which I have made a start on), but Brown is just the sort of person this encyclopedia should be providing information on. BabelStone (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great result. Nomination withdrawn. Someone please close this. --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Ancy Céline[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable local beauty queen. Quis separabit? 14:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sources for her to pass WP:BIO, next to no news coverage, nothing seems reliable (social media, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had I spotted this unsourced BLP a week ago I've of CSD'd under A7 but pretty pointless doing so now, Anyway nn beauty queen. –Davey2010^Talk 00:52, 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 and redirect to Jeb_Bush#Personal_life. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Bush[edit]

Previous AfD discussions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noelle Bush (second nomination)

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

Procedural nomination for another user per discussion on my talk page (diff). I am presently neutral. While the previous AfD discussion in December 2007 closed as "delete and redirect", it was only redirected, and it has been quite a bit of time, so it's likely best to have a new discussion at this time. The nomination rationale is below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This particular child has no notability outside of her inherited notability through her father. Even though she has garnered some press, that press is all due to her relationship with her father. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks Northamerica1000 for fixing the problem with my attempt to nominate this for AfD. About the article. I attempted to simply create a redirect out of the article, which was a simple statement about her drug problems (which are not notable but for her relationship to her father) but was reverted by the IP creator of the article with the following edit summary: "Information is relevant given that she is the daughter of a prominent politician - Jeb Bush's son has his own wikipedia entry as well". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt to Jeb Bush#Personal life Subject's notability is linked to her father and drug issues (especially from 2002) are of no interest except to create an unwarranted attack tone on the subject. Nate • (chatter) 17:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Edited well, her story resonates because of the dichotomy between rich and poor. Yes, her issues were a "double standard", but if the article is written properly it could be very encyclopedic. 74.80.56.23 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, we're an encyclopedia with a striving to be neutral; if you want to examine dichotomies, perhaps you should check into another form of research or some kind of social or medical journal. Nate • (chatter) 04:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- Not merely because she is Jeb's daughter. That in itself is unremarkable, but because her name became synonymous with the double standard of drug addiction. Jeb Bush increased mandatory minimum sentences for drug addiction, but when his own daughter was arrested, he squashed it as a "private family matter". No politics, and I'm not attacking her, but she is a POWERFUL statement that drug addiction is not just for the poor, indigent and minority communities. It's partly because of her that we give the "affluent" more attention on drug abuse than they would like. So I'm saying keep because written the RIGHT way, her article could be a profound piece on drug addiction and redemption, rather than being a mere footnote of Jeb's life. 74.80.56.23 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt to Jeb Bush#Personal life Noelle Bush is only notable in so far as she relates to more prominent Bushes. This can be seen from the complete lack of secondary sources that discuss Noelle independently of Jeb or George W. Wikipedia is not the place for stories that resonate, or material that expounds on the dichotomy between rich and poor, or for profound pieces on drug addiction or redemption. It is for encyclopedic articles on noteworthy subjects. This article reeks of "See! Jeb's daughter is a drug addict!" Let's get rid of it. Acone (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why not create a Bush family page. There she can be stored, along with other less notable Bushes but still allow basic encyclopedic information for someone who has no idea who she is. I strongly oppose redirecting to Jeb because too many times, a person whose notability is established by another and whose article gets reduced to a redirect, ends up with no information at all about that subject. Case in point, Charlie Dick died. I had no idea who he as, but he redirects to Patsy Cline. But with no information about him, I had to go OUTSIDE Wikipedia to determine he was a musician. I get that hard drive space is at a premium, but some people really have NO idea who the subject is 74.80.56.23 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC) 68.228.3.36 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Keep. We cannot pick and choose when the rules apply. The article needs expansion, but regardless of WHY she is well-known, she is. We cannot cherry-pick notability.[reply]

Redirect and salt to Jeb Bush#Personal life for others. I'm sure it can be "improved", but it will likely just be a fancier version of its current state. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:07, 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 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Program in Mathematics for Young Scientists[edit]

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

I deleted this under the WP:PROD process a month ago, but following a request on my talkpage undeleted it to give someone a chance to work on it. No improvement has taken place, and as far as I can see Ravenswing's initial deletion rationale Non-notable high school program that's lacked ANY reliable sources for ten years now still remains valid. Doing WP:BEFORE digging brings up a lot of mentions on assorted websites, but I can't find anything more than passing mentions in anything approaching a reliable source. While it's obviously a genuine course, I can't find anything to suggest any particular notability for it; residential taster programs at higher education institutions aimed at high-school students are a common occurrence, and I can't see anything particularly out of the ordinary about this one (except perhaps the night-long games of Egyptian Rat Screw). ‑ iridescent 12:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yep ... there are a superficial handful of citations, and those voters wont to register an opinion at AfD with four seconds' glance worth of "research" might jump a different way. Unfortunately, the cites are all (a) from this program's website, (b) from BU's own publications, or (c) fleeting mentions. As Iridescent states, programs like this are a dime a dozen, and I couldn't find any evidence a month ago that it was notable beyond the common run of them ... or could demonstrate any notability at all. I'm unsurprised that the editor who asked Iridescent to reinstate the page did zero work on it thereafter (nor, indeed, has made any Wikipedia edits at all since). Ravenswing 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to show that this is anything different from similar taster courses at other universities. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClearlyU[edit]

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

I've found no evidence of the notability of this font. Declined PROD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of typefaces#Unicode fonts, which mentions it. Regardless of whether sources exist (they may, but if so, they're hard to find), the article as it currently exists has no sources and no information beyond a basic definition you would find in a software directory. As Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a place to advertise fonts, a redirect seems to make the most sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up incidental mentions on various font sites but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 06:33, 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 speedy keep. Procedural close (wrong venue), take redirects to WP:RFD please. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

autophille[edit]

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

Misspelling and double redirect.--Proud User (talk) 11:13, 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 04:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. DharmaKeerthi Sri Ranjan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion. Obviously not notable. --rayukk | talk 10:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence to demonstrate it meets WP:NACADEMIC. In addition this is almost a direct copy & paste from http://www.dksriranjan.com/. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPA-created CV with no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 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 04:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Browser[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikicology. A look at the main author's contributions makes me feel that this is Mr. Ikhianosime himself, or maybe a friend or relative. Anyway, the programmer, nor the company or browser are notable. rayukk | talk 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better yet but feel welcome to draft and userfy if needed. Pinging tagger Clpo13. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:04, 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 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osine Ikhianosime[edit]

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

As with BluDoors, Crocodile Browser, and Anesi Ikhianosime, this young programmer is simply not notable. rayukk | talk 10:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Officialjjones (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing convincingly better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anesi Ikhianosime[edit]

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

Another young programmer with no evidence of notable. He will probably be notable in the future but certainly not now. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikicology. A look at the main author's contributions makes me feel that this is Mr. Ikhianosime himself, or maybe a friend or relative. Anyway, the programmer, nor the company or browser are notable. rayukk | talk 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better at the moment. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 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. — foxj 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Chandra Hamal[edit]

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

Politician with little or no significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't seem to have met WP:POLITICIAN. Guess this should be deleted. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this doesn't even make a claim that he ever held any political office that would satisfy WP:NPOL — it just asserts that he existed as a politician, and then provides an unsourced biographical sketch of his personal life while not really saying anything at all about what he did as a politician. Even if he did actually pass NPOL for something, this isn't the article he would get to keep on that basis. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually make and properly source an actual claim of notability rather than mere existence. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it does say that he was a key leader of Nepali Congress, the largest political party in Nepal during most of the 20th century. Keeping in mind that NC was an illegal party for most of this period, it's unlikely that he would have held office. On my side, I can't find much to verify his existence, there is a mention of a prisoner from Baitadi with this name released in 1969, https://books.google.com/books?id=hbMjAQAAMAAJ p. 97, but I can't find anything else in English. --Soman (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, going through the mess that is the edit history of this article, it certainly seems that it is a hoax/test page. --Soman (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The external link is to a well respected scholarly journal, but unfortunately (for most of us) to an article in Nepali. It would take someone fluent in that language to determine whether it's a useful reference. I doubt if this is a hoax or test, but it might be a memorial. The first wikilinks to Ram Chandra Hamal were added by an editor who chose the username "Kshitiz hamal". If the journal article supports some of the three-quarters of the article that Ohnoitsjamie removed as an "unsourced mess", then Hamal might count as a party leader in the sense of WP:POLOUTCOMES, "usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success." Worldbruce (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the Nepali language reference makes no mention at all of Hamal. In fact it's about Raja Kalyan Singh in around 1734 A.D. Just proves the whole article is hoax. --Soman (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, my Nepali wasn't up to evaluating that pdf. Worldbruce (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soman's clarification of source. Bazj (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In light of Soman's translation and the fact that searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, ProQuest, EBSCO, and InfoTRAC found no sources about the topic. Worldbruce (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct conflict deaths[edit]

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

This was a proposed deletion that was objected to without explanation. The PROD reasoning still stands: This article is essentially an essay that violates WP:NOTSYNTH. The obvious POV issues cannot be fixed by rewording because the article itself is a POV essay. clpo13_(talk) 09:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the initial PRODer of the article, under the same reasoning above. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research 73.138.114.150 (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:33, 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 merge to Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 16:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters[edit]

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

Not clear why this (or most similar articles) would be a notable list subject. Every sports event that is televized has a broadcaster, generally this gets briefly reported but is hardly the topic of significant attention. 37 lists of US men's college basketball tournament broadcasters seems like about 30 too many (the finals and perhaps a few others are probably notable list subjects). Fram (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament. The information is probably better served as part of that article.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Prisencolin Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the navbox at the bottom of the page, there appears to be a broadcasters list for every conference. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree to merge the content into the main article. I'd also vote the same for all the conference tournament broadcaster articles. I think they could be bulk-AFD'd. IMO none would warrant their own article. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Merge per X96lee15 would be fine too.) I've never grasped the notability of these stand-alone lists of tournament and bowl game broadcasters. The subject fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per X96lee15. Rikster2 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since it may be useful information in context. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:02, 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prak Monyphearun[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. The article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G5 since there's an ongoing sock puppet investigation into the article's creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:09, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Backman Shull[edit]

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

A woman who was the seventh oldest person in the world, fourth oldest in the US and ultimately just the oldest in South Carolina is not sufficient notability. The articles here (the GRG only provides a single point of reference and Find-A-Grave just acknowledges her grave) are all obituaries and are WP:ROUTINE coverage. The only notable information is her birth and death information ~~and suggest converting to redirect per WP:NOPAGE to List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States#Oldest_living_American_by_state.~~ Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out redirect per Rayukk's actual reading of the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per Ricky81682. I'd vote against a redirect, since it links to "Oldest living American by state", and Mrs. Shull has already passed away. rayukk | talk 10:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "the fourth-oldest person in the United States and the seventh-oldest in the world for little over a month" -- imagine, a whole month. "Even as her hearing and vision failed, friends said Shull didn't mind visitors and liked to clutch their hands while she talked" -- oh for Pete's sake. WP:NOPAGE EEng (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Article appears to be a copy-paste from somewhere.[reply]
Delete The only retrievable source is a 4-graf obit that contains much less info than what's in our article. The subject's actual age appears, from the article, to be a matter of dispute. WP:NOPAGE. WP:GNG. WP:SIGCOV. WP:SNOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would we keep an article that says this: "Coles said, "There was some question whether Shull was actually born in 1895, but his group recognizes her 1894 birth date." Shull's birth date and the day she was married were recorded in a family Bible, which alerted relatives to her age. "I didn't know Mom was that old," Smith told The State. "And I wouldn't believe it until I saw it in the Bible." David in DC (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time. Someone will come up with a reason to do so. The first discussion included "Notability is not a deletion criterion" as one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 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 speedy keep. per SK1 - There is sourcing available so not really sure why I nominated it, I'm guessing I thought I searched when perhaps I didn't... Who knows!, Anyway withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East Leeds FM[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 28 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, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is sourcing available. I got bored on page five of the google hits. Most hits are minor, but there is enough to pass WP:BCAST. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:12, 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.

Zelda McCague[edit]

The result was Redirect Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 04:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEVENT, WP:MEMORIAL. She is not encyclopedic outside meriting inclusion in the list of centennarian Canadians or such (through whether such a list would be encyclopedic is dubious, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Born, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, died. WP:NOPAGE, and anyway apparently one source. EEng (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How good is this one, EEng: "She was entitled to draw a pension in 1958, at the then-pensionable age of 70." CommanderLinx (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to List of Canadian supercentenarians. WP:NOPAGE. Nothing encyclopedic here other than a name, age and country. Information easily obtained in the various "lists of" articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)— CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Redirect. Longevity, alone, is no reason for a person to have a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE. This subject, does not meet our general notability guidelines and lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to relevant list. Clearly non-notable and WP:NOPAGE. ~ Rob^Talk 18:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect While Mrs. McCague might not fit the notability criteria, the fact that she was the oldest living Canadian should be enough to give her an entry in the List of Canadian supercentenarians, which could be expanded. 930310 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canadian supercentenarians seems like a pretty straightforward result here, based on the coverage and inclusion criteria at that list (where she is already listed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shield-X Technology[edit]

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

No distinctive notability of its own--only product appears to be BrainShield, which is probably though not certainly notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY as written => spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company. Existing sources are for its product. Fails WP:COMPANY.—UY Scuti ^Talk 11:54, 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 04:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Tamil Nadu[edit]

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

This page and a few pages in the same category were recently created. There is no apparent evidence that these "regions" exist, and the content of the articles conflicts with well-sourced articles like Tamil Nadu and Kongu Nadu and Geography of Tamil Nadu. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles that should probably be deleted for the same reasons:

Coimbatore region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Salem region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Thanjavur region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Tiruvannamalai region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Tondai Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I am unable to find any sources confirming the existence of these places, and the articles linked above contradict these new articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Existence of such regions are unverifiable, except for Tondai region. Delete all except Tondai region.—UY Scuti ^Talk 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:UNREFERENCED.--Vin09 (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all except Tondai Nadu which is referenced .Shyamsunder (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tondai Nadu is not referenced. Technically, it has a "reference", but if you click through to that source, you will see that it does not support the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several government departments run regional offices but different numbers of them covering different territorial divisions. Not finding any evidence that the "regions" in this article are a recognised tier of administration. Here's negative evidence: no mention of regions under "Administrative units of state", nor anywhere else on that page: Noyster (talk), 17:23, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy d'Abreu[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Following the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier that being the oldest person in the world was insufficient to be automatically notable, a person who was at one time the oldest person in the United Kingdom is not sufficient. She may still be the oldest person born in the British raj but that's basically trivia rather than real notability as the world's oldest Scottish man (and 2nd oldest UK man) was likewise deleted. Excluding ancestry.com (which I suspect wouldn't qualify as a WP:RS, all the sources here are obituaries which are more akin to WP:ROUTINE coverage than evidence of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Augustine Tessier was certainly the oldest person in the world, She had holds its title for only a short time (22 January 1981 - 8 March 1981) of 34 years ago. article of Augustine Tessier was deleted for the contents or sources was insufficient. However, article of Lucy d'Abreu is not insufficient of contents or sources. she was oldest person in UK for long time, it is notable. I think that there is no reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So it's notable if she held the title for a long time? Regardless of title? I'm just trying to figure out what your standards are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

d"Abreau was just the oldest in the UK not the world's oldest. Do you think the oldest of each country is sufficient to confer notability? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. Given that there are a whole bunch of centanarian AfDs up right now, my take is that a GNG for these folks is needed. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "a GNG is needed"? There's only one WP:GNG. EEng (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of deletes and redirects [18] Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every supercentenarian needs an article, but given that she is the oldest ever person born in India, and there are a number of sources, I think an article is justified. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say she was the oldest person ever born in India? I thought this was just the oldest person born during the British raj time period? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nom. Any possibly decent source is already in the article, all other search results I see are mentions of her being of old age. Each source pretty much says the same thing (standard supercentenarian/"oldest..." info), with some ordinary and pointless details about her life ("Staff said Mrs d'Abreu reads a newspaper daily, walks with a stick and enjoys food, books and conversation." [19]). There doesn't seem to be much to write about her or most other supercentenarians. The most relevant information about her (name, birth, nationality, death, age, "oldest...") is already in List of oldest people by country and List of British supercentenarians. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All these articles should be speedy kept until we have a GNG discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.78 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.47.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable enough to be written about by multiple reliable sources. Not many people can do what she did (live to that age) TypingInTheSky (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users. it is impossible to obliterate this article.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why comment here if you're so sure it won't get deleted? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOPAGE. Insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oldest person in the UK and oldest person born in India is quite notable --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced useful article. The noms rationale for deletion is bogus, he's alluding to an afd discussion that reached consensus to delete like it was a policy discussion. Szzuk (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being the oldest person in the world doesn't convey notability, but having your life covered in the media for many years does. People can pass GNG regardless of whether or not you think they don't "deserve" to. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the only test for having a standalone article -- see WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It generally is when it comes to a biography - note there is not a single example of a biography on WP:NOPAGE. How is this content forked from anything else? What is the appropriate page for this content to be on? I'm guessing a list of the oldest people, but when you create a standalone article based on a list item, it isn't a content fork. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does content forking have to do with anything? "It generally is when it comes to a biography" -- where do you get that? The answer to your question is already above: the appropriate page for this content (what little there is) is, as mentioned by other above, is one of the gazillion of lists-of-supercentenarians.

Delete as per DerbyCountyinNZ. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a supercentenarians doesn't automatically mean you aren't notable in any case. That is a flawed argument in favour of our deletion. Meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of women writers of dark fiction[edit]

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

'Dark fiction' is a redlink, and a somewhat nebulous concept. As such this list doesn't have clear inclusion criteria. It's also largely unsourced. Robofish (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to deletion, this list could be renamed to something more specific, such as List of women writers of Gothic fiction (which we have an article on) or List of women horror writers (which oddly doesn't seem to exist). Robofish (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying contributors: User:Gothkid2000, User:Fadesga, User:Ramsey Campbell, User:Emmaaudsley, User:RedNostromo. Others who may be interested are User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who proposed this article for deletion in 2014, and User:Fun with aluminum, who contested the prod. Robofish (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the logic of my original PROD. Just about every creator fiction at one point or another writes fiction that is in important ways "dark". No Angela Carter, no Alison Lurie, no Iris Murdoch, no Sylvia Plath, and very few non-English-language writers. There are, however, lots of small press horror/fasntasy writes and most of the women who wrote for Abyss Books. Fundamentally and incurably subjective. And Poppy Brite has been a male writer for a while now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments of Nom and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. In particular, the undefined inclusion criteria make a valid list hopeless.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiribati national basketball team[edit]

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

Fails WP:V – no evidence of existence. clpo13_(talk) 01:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this was created as a hoax. Kiribati did indeed join FIBA in 1987 [20], and they seem to have at least participated in minor regional tournaments (see [21], for example). That said, it would probably be tough to write an article about this topic. Zagalejo^^^ 04:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:GNG 2601:586:C003:1700:982C:15B7:571B:BEED (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They did join FIBA in 1987 and have participated at the Pacific Games, needs sources obviously though. This shouldn't be used as a reason, but plenty of more obscure national sports teams have articles, and this one could have a bit of info on it. I'll try to add more. JTtheOG (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I prodded this beforehand, with the reason being that I could find absolutely no evidence that the team had ever played. However, if they've participated in the Pacific Games, then they're notable, as with all other national sporting teams (no matter how small). IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Existence of team is verified. Being a national team, this can be kept. —UY Scuti ^Talk 10:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a hoax. National teams are notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:03, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified grading[edit]

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

Non-notable, reads like an essay JMHamo (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I thought about speedying this, WP:OR, WP:HOWTO, essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unfortunately, there is no speedy criterion that matches, but it's clear OR. DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG --rayukk | talk 09:30, 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 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UNEC 2015 Student Games[edit]

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

Non-notable sporting event. Not completely clear but it appears to be a single university sporting event that has yet to be held. All sources are primary. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 12 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! 02:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was moved to UNEC 2015 Student Sports Games on 19 October, and the AFD tag was removed. I've replaced it, which - with the relist - will give plenty of time to discuss the article on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:21, 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 03:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete future event of unclear notability Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable event. No significant coverage—UY Scuti ^Talk 10:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL: no evidence of coverage outside the university organising the event. Nominator's description appears correct: even after it takes place next month, unlikely to achieve "notability": Noyster (talk), 13:31, 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 04:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Kishangarh Fort[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I cannot any information about this battle in reliable sources. The article has been tagged for citations since December 2011. The one book that has been cited has an incomplete citation and can't be found anywhere. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear that Pakistani forces captured the fort mentioned. Here is one Indian excerpt from a brief search only, I shall add more later:

In Rajasthan, some inconclusive skirmishing took place which had no effect on the main battles. The Indian 11 Infantry Division captured Gadra and Dali and some Pakistani posts, while the Pakistanis captured Munabao railway station and the old fort of Kishangarh.
— (Krishna, Ashok), India's Armed Forces: Fifty Years of War and Peace, p. 67)

Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions like this are not enough to establish notability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. In its present form it needs supporting references to establish notability, Mar4d and TopGun can improve the article while this nomination is here -- in that case I will revise this vote at end of week. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibaba, you have not provided any valid rationale for your !vote. AfD is not referendum or majority vote or democracy, here articles gets deleted or kept on the basis of policies. Your !vote seems WP:LIKE.--Human3015^TALK 21:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

capture of Kishangarh fort can be found in following books/paers

Ayub, soldier and statesman: speeches and statements (1958-1965) of Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan, president of Pakistan & a detailed account of the Indo-Pakistan War, 1965 by Mohammad Ayub Khan
My version: India-Pakistan war, 1965 by Mohammed Musa
Story of Indian Aggressions Against Pakistan by Khalid Ghaznawi
India's Armed Forces: Fifty Years of War and Peace By Ashok Krishna
Pakistan Spotlight International, Volume 1, Issues 1-7 1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaba1977 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibaba, there has been vast literature available online on India-Pakistan conflicts and relations, can't we find single online reliable source giving details of this incident? Whatever books you are mentioning does they have detailed description of this incident or just passing mention? In vast online Indo-Pak literature we are not finding any detailed description of this event, so it does not deserve separate article despite this event was really happened or not.--Human3015^TALK 05:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet is not the end of this world. HIAS (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did not find much reliable sources regarding this battle. Some people are saying it was really happened, but I really question it deserves special article or not. It can be mentioned in parent article of 1965 war, don't deserve separate article. Mar4d wrote the sentence, that can be added in parent article if verified. Making separate article is WP:UNDUE. --Human3015^TALK 18:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No results other than this article. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. It doesn't meet WP:GNG (so there's that), but it also doesn't appear to be an event that has a lasting effect or a significant effect - not even a significant impact on the outcome of the 1965 War between India and Pakistan or something similar. Hence, this article fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has significant effect on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 because it lies over 10km inside india. HIAS (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources that discuss such significance? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant topic, which I will try to improve in the next week, please do not take a decision till then. Furthermore, @Kautilya3 why the multiple votes? Being the NOM it is kinda greed upon that you are going for a delete. Putting your vote in the section seems kinda bad faith to me, so please remove it from the section. TY. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: This is not election, at least provide some reliable sources which are describing this event in detail. You want to improve it next week, so better we can userfy it, you prepare your draft and submit it to WP:AFC. Thank you. --Human3015^TALK 04:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever man. I don't want to start a discussion with you, cuz everytime we talk, your feelings get hurt and you run off to ANI, where you are told to grow a thicker skin. My comment is meant for the admin who will look at this debate. So there is absolutely no need for us to "bicker" at present. I am sure that keeping this on wiki for the next week is not going to cause any undue problems. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not only canvassed but also not policy based, we are simply asking to provide reliable sources. This is not majority vote.--Human3015^TALK 04:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: its unreferenced content says it was part of the "Desert Sector" (Rajasthan sector?) of the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. If this larger sector of the conflict does not have a dedicated article (the sector is mentioned only briefly in the main Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 article), I can't see how having a dedicated article on an incident within that sector can be justified, even if it can be sourced. The incident would, when properly referenced, be perhaps suitable for inclusion in a future dedicated article on that "Desert Sector" part of the conflict or worthy of a mention in the main article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable and properly sourced info into Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. This event lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the source, per WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:47, 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 04:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Williams (composer)[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of any notability here. The refs are own web-sites, blogs, faculty member CV and the slightest of passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG by a very wide margin. Perhaps intended as a promotional piece for a book Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PROF. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources are YouTube videos and other web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 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.