Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 November	8 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Meer[edit]

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

nn singer ; tagged for a year - üser:Altenmann >t 23:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing better. 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 Redirected to Salvation Army camps in Canada. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Ponds[edit]

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

Seems to be a completely non-notable Salvation Army camp. Kelly ^hi! 23:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Its desolate location makes it worth knowing. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Camps can be notable as human settlements of a kind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Summer_camps_in_Canada), this one seems to have 100-200 people at times. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Its desolate location..." isn't an argument for anything. Gwen, I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be rewriting WP:NPLACE; I don't see anything in NPLACE that would apply here. Conversely, there's nothing in the article that suggests this passed the GNG, and I can't find anything through Google that makes this noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like it's closer to a hotel than to a town or other populated place. This isn't a place people live, this is a place people visit sometimes, right? The lack of sources makes this harder to understand, but this appears to be a retreat or summer camp, which is basically a commercial operation with religious ties. Having a capacity of a couple hundred people isn't the same as having a population of a couple hundred people. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be a permanently populated place, and cited sources do not suffice to show notability. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks to be more of a business entity since it is rented out so WP:NORG might be a way to look at it, in which case it fails. It is not a permanently populated place, nor would I call it an 'attraction or landmark' so NPLACE does not apply. It does not come close to passing GNG. Jbh ^Talk 12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a place but a small part/facility of a larger organisation. Not notable in any way. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - oh man, there are a whole bunch of these. I just noticed {{Salvation Army camps in Canada}}. Kelly ^hi! 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A mass series of WP:POINTy, WP:WIKIHOUNDing nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly#Neelix. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are now being WP:POINTy yourself, User:Shawn in Montreal! Also 'oppose' is not a valid position. It is quite right that these issues be raised. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've changed this !vote to a comment. As for this vendetta to purge Wikipedia of all Neelix created articles -- notable or not, often with the flimsiest of rationales from Kelly -- I think it's a disservice to this project and to these perfectly innocent organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a flimsy rationale, I think it's a flimsy article. The innocence of the organization is not a factor in determining if the article is worth keeping. This was presented neutrally, so unless there's some evidence to the contrary, words like "vendetta" don't seem to be assuming good faith. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't !vote to keep this article. But WP:AGF is not a carte blanche. Based on what I've seen at other Afds by Kelly today, these are in many cases not merit-based rationales. Time and again, I've seen notable Canadian organizations taken to Afd with flimsy, cookie cutter rationales. I never said we keep articles on the basis of "innocence," of course, I simply meant Afds on articles that do meet WP:ORG, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servants Anonymous Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACT Alberta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASHI and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Better World. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn stop being the pot calling the kettle black. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Salvation Army camps in Canada, as merging/redirecting to the parent article generally is the standard in situations like this. Apparently Twin Ponds is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but certainly it is worth mentioning in the relevant list. Cavarrone 06:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just setup Salvation Army camps in Canada last night, and put this one in there too now. The {{Salvation Army camps in Canada}} is now at TfD. I think we can close this one out Kelly since the info is preserved and a decent article covering all Canadian camps created instead. All camps redirected to the one article. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for creating that page. I agree Salvation Army camps in Canada makes this AfD moot. Cavarrone 08:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney breast[edit]

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

More of a dictionary definition than anything. I think anything useful here is already contained in chimney. Kelly ^hi! 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge the only mention in chimney is in an external link. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A non-trivial well-known easily verifiable architecture element, easily expandable. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep As above, ~~(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chimney-breast)~~. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a Google Book search proves this a notable-enough term. Citing a dictionary isn't helpful, given that DICDEF is the rationale given for deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my botch there, guess I was too keen on showing it wasn't but a cooked-up neogolism (given the background with those as you're more than aware), cites like this abound. Thanks for the nudge! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem--there is, as I saw also, plenty of good material in architectural books. It just takes a lover--of architecture, not of boobs. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Chimney~~Fireplace. As it stands this content could easily be incorporated there. There doesn't seem significant scope for improvement. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge into fireplace ~~and/or chimney~~. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fireplace is probably a better target and it is already mentioned there. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fireplace. No need for a stand alone article. Jbh ^Talk 13:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The fascination of the creator with breasts even extends to chimney breasts! Give me strength. Merge for now. Could possibly be re-created by a more competent editor with more content per WP:TNT if necessary. AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fireplace, I agree. It doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually a real term, and deletion proves little. Amazingly enough, there are specific terms for the filling material in such construction, and so on. Abstruse? Maybe. Delete? No. Collect (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fireplace. This guy is beyond belief. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think I added enough to overcome WP:DICDEF issues. There's still a question of whether it's best merged, but I'm seeing sources which make it clear this is a distinct architectural element with noted cultural variation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and yes, as others have already noted, despite the trends noted in the article creator's interests, this is a real thing for which there are easy to find sources from some centuries of talking about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge BMK (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Okay, we really need to start actually performing the WP:BEFORE due diligence before nominating any more of User:Neelix's articles for AfD. The fact that there are ZERO "delete" !votes speaks volumes. Reasonable editors can differ whether the subject is better covered as part of the fireplace article or should have a stand-alone article, but this is a clearly notable topic with plenty of coverage in the pertinent literature per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have not indicated keep though? They have indicated merge. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count again: there are more keeps than merges (7–6), with two expressing keep or merge. Given the split, however, WP:SNOW is not appropriate. That said, there is clearly no appetite for "delete". Before any more AfDs are filed for articles created by User:Neelix, I urge everyone to actually perform the duel diligence suggested by WP:BEFORE. Most of Neelix's articles are being preserved, and this is starting to smell very inappropriate. This is why AfD article stats are discussed during RfAs; it bears on the nominator's judgment and understanding of the notability and other suitability guidelines for stand-alone articles. No one should be nominating articles for deletion willy-nilly, and without a good-faith belief -- based on basic due diligence of the subject article -- that they do no satisfy the applicable guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW, is, as you say, obviously not appropriate. It is basically evenly split given some have recommended a keep/merge. I have not suggested deletion but merging. You have said that most of Neelix's articles nominated for deletion are being kept but I have seen several deleted already per WP:SNOW namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Week (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignite the Road to Justice AusLondonder (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of his stuff is going down, in fact the vast majority of stuff User_talk:Neelix/deletions/Archive_1 nominated for delete/merge etc is going down if you are keeping score. Then there are all the deletes happening without discussion. I personally merged at 14 of his non-notable stubs in one go yesterday. Kelly is acting very much AGF Legacypac Even my nom right above went merge.(talk) 04:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - note that a merge counts as a keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I was inclined to say merge but surprised to find some sources about the subject independent of definitions. Jppcap (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 00:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Green[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E, resting on one single news article for sourcing, of a person notable primarily for an allegation of contributory negligence by the police in his death. But for the life of me, I can't find any indication in a Google News search that the lawsuit filed in response ever actually went anywhere; even on the ACLU's website, the last "update" posted to his case is a 2006 denial of a motion to dismiss the suit, with nothing posted since then and no reliable source coverage locatable to verify anything more recent than that either. This just isn't enough notability to warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia — and because WP:BLP applies to all people named in an article, not just the subject, we have to give some thought to the reputational harm that can be caused to the defendant in the lawsuit as well: if we can't verify that Robert Bowman was ever actually found guilty of anything, then for WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:PERP reasons we shouldn't keep an article about the matter at all if it's sourced this poorly. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely with Bearcat's analysis. This person is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a criminal case with no lasting implications. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Washington International Trade Association. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Washington International Trade Foundation[edit]

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

Reason: This article has several issues. First, it fails notablity. A search of news articles brings up a single passing mention, and I can't find any substantial overview of the organization independently of the WITA. Secondly, the article was written by a user:Wita4, which is probably WP:COI. Thirdly, while the source cited is a dead link, archive.org has the content here [1], which along with [2] shows that the entirety of the article is WP:COPYPASTE.Forbes72 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"WITF"? - hehe. Redirect Washington International Trade Association. BTW deadlink easily recoverable, and copypaste is not a sin per se because basic barebone facts are not copyrightabe. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redirect to Washington International Trade Association. Not enough content for a stand-alone article. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GEOINT Data Fitness[edit]

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

Appears to be original research. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Copy-paste from the lede paragraph of Physical fitness, with some words changed to make it look like a different topic is being discussed. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per QVVERTYVS - yep, nonsense. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 06:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tulane Green Wave football statistical leaders[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is, in fact, a member of a set of 53 analogous lists found here: Category:Lists of college football statistical leaders by team. The appropriateness of the inclusion of these lists on Wikipedia should be considered first at the class level. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is not a reason to delete this article. It provides: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Here, the lists are well-formulated, clean and concise, and the article includes sufficient explanatory text. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are not trivial, meaningless information, nor indiscriminate lists. Any time a player breaks a school record or is climbing the leaderboard, AP stories and ESPN on-air recaps mention it. Wikipedia includes hundreds, if not thousands, of meaningful, non-trivial lists about sports like these, many of which don't have the written context of these. Jhn31 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from all the valid points above, I would like to note, especially before Matt Forte, the likes of Peggy Flournoy, Don Zimmerman, and Bill Banker were all highly notable for their statistical achievements listed here. Cake (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Male hysteria[edit]

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

Short article, no references, not notable. Codeofdusk (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Notability is easily established; see, e.g., this book by an UIUC professor of intellectual history or this one. In short, whether male hysteria existed or not was the subject of a lively debate in nineteenth century psychiatry. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started to rewrite the article based on the sources that I've found. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article definitely has problems, and this diagnosis is obsolete, a Google Books search shows that the topic is notable. It is associated with 19th century French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot, who was a mentor to Sigmund Freud. It is better to keep, expand and reference the article, instead of deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have some notability, there is a detailed female hysteria article as well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In the article, None of mentioned sources talk about male hysteria. Only about male nervous illness, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JugniSQ (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As has been said above, the topic was a serious topic of intellectual debate that has been well-published in reliable sources. RailwayScientist (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 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 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Animated Animals Attack[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for nearly six years, and for good reason. An [3] internet search turns up only 520 results (which is very little for Google), and most of them are just Wikipedia mirrors. The only thing that would be considered RS (possibly) is a very brief mention on the site of an animated film festival that does not have a WP page. Fails WP:NFILMS. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 20:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. It's possible that there are offline sources. If so, the article can be recreated with better sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 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 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESS Bilbao[edit]

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

The article is about a failed effort to attract European Spallation Source to Bilbao. The article is severely out of date (more than 6 years), and is completely unreferenced. I see no point in retaining the article. PK T(alk) 19:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The European Spallation Source is now under construction in Lund, Sweden. There is no encyclopedic value to retain an unreferenced article about a failed bid to have the project built in Bilbao. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Kryklia[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK. This was a contested PROD - apparently this is one of the top kickboxers in the world with lots of big fights in 2015 however, the fight record does not support that and the sources are poor. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. How can we keep this? Do all those matches need to be sourced or what? He already won Tatneft Cup, a tough competition and went on extra round against Jahfarr Wilnis, GLORY's number 2 challenger in the world. It was expected to sign for a better promotion. I can write his record through videos (Kunlun, SUPERKOMBAT after tonight, etc). What do you say? Certainly a future star since he knocked Hron out. Tomáš Hron being surely a top 25 (or top 20). Khbabez is also very good and holds titles. Lorenzo Fertita (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. If he meets any of those criteria, then you need to put that in the article, along with the reliable sources to support it. Being a "future star" falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Wikipedia is for those who are already notable, not those who may become notable. WP:TOOSOON is another criteria that may apply. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. He is not ranked by either CombatPress or Liverkick. As I commented above, he may become notable but he's not there yet. There is also no significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 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 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Words[edit]

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

This article makes no sense, even after copyediting. What are spatial words? Lfstevens (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and can't find any sources that say what "spatial words" are. Probably doesn't pass GNG anyway. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random assortment of concepts that are only vaguely connected, except in the original writer's mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to fail WP:IINFO as a random collection of unrelated topics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 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 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Redirected by another editor and reverted. Richhoncho (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely any content and there doesn't appear to be much coverage around that could be used to expand it. --Michig (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing for better improvement at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 461 Ocean Boulevard. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline Florida[edit]

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

A non notable album track / B-Side which has not been listed in any notable charts, not won any awards and not been recorded by multiple notable artists so fails WP:NSONGS and has no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Author has contested redirection to the album leaving deletion as the only remaining option. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainline Florida" was now massively improved by adding more to the writing and composition page. The intro was extended and verified. Also a both commercial and critical reception, consisting of chart positions, sales figures and critics quotes have been added. The vinyl B-side was added. This should lead to the revert of deleting the article. It is no longer allowed to be deleted. It should really stay on Wikipedia. --Matthiasberoli (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nicely created and if Wikipedia wanted to be a repository of everything it would be great - but, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, it doesn't. The criteria are clear and the track remains non-notable per the Wikipedia definitions I cited. The new content doesn't change that - in fact, if anything, it exposes the fact that the criteria are not met. The reviews quoted are of the album on which it appeared which only strengthens the argument for redirection to the album article; the chart references are for a completely different song - this song does not appear in the cited charts. Nothing has demonstrated individual notability of this song and nothing in the article could not be incorporated into the parent article for the album, which is where is belongs. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:40, 25 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 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Willie and the Hand Jive or 461 Ocean Boulevard. The chart listings seem to be for Willie and the Hand Jive; notability is not inherited, so that doesn't make this B-side notable. The brief mentions in three sources ([4], [5], [6] (p. 246)) do not, in my opinion, constitute significant coverage. I am not sure what the best redirect target is though. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this seems best linked to the album, rather than an independently notable song article. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saturday Night Live#Broadcast . – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNL Vintage[edit]

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

Non-notable air dates of SNL reruns, failing WP:NOT/WP:N. The episodes themselves are notable, not their second-airing information (even under a fancy new title like "Vintage!"). The original episodes are already listed at List of Saturday Night Live episodes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of Lost, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of CSI: Miami, etc. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently airing show on major network, but agreed the airdates/shows aired can likely be taken out unless they're of importance. We don't delete currently airing major network shows for the mere reason of being made up of reruns (listed efforts were killed eight years ago when out-of-control showcruft was controlled). Nate • (chatter) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this is a show is just absurd. These are reruns, and there is no difference between this article and the 'airdates' article other than the fact these reruns have different branding. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's scheduled by NBC to fulfill a one-hour timeslot. Sometimes that's all we need. Worse comes to worse like I did for the little-known network Lifetime Real Women into a lower section on Lifetime (TV network), a merge to a section on Saturday Night Live#Broadcast with a basic infobox/summary would probably be for the best to retain this somewhere; the ratings numbers are only of interest to the ratings crufters and as I said, only important episode connections should be highlighted. Nate • (chatter) 07:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a one-hour timeslot on NBC does not a show make- it goes without saying that it's what airs that matters. These are reruns plain and simple, as reported by NBC to TV listings (see The Futon Critic / Zap2it). Wikipedia does not chronicle rerun material, in episode lists let alone in standalone articles. The secondary coverage required to pass WP:N is really about SNL; thus, I agree that a sentence or two about the airings can be merged to SNL#Broadcast. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly getting a good deal of secondary source coverage about this obviously notable and ongoing television program. — Cirt (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obviously notable and ongoing television program is Saturday Night Live. Reruns airing and in what broadcast order is most certainly not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge what is needed to be merged. I honestly do not see why this should get its own page; as the nominator says, this is just a list of reruns of episodes already listed at List of Saturday Night Live episodes. The lead of the article can easily be edited and merged onto either the List of SNL episodes page or the main SNL page. Prhdbt [talk] 02:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saturday Night Live#Broadcast where the reruns are already succinctly discussed. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This "article" is no more than a statement of the fact that reruns exist, and a list of when they've (recently) aired. What would a "complete" article even look like? Discounting the overlapping or redundant content to existing SNL articles and lists, we're left with a list of dates of reruns better off left to SNL Wikia or other outlets. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:42, 27 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 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge to List of Saturday Night Live episodes: Although they're reruns with 30 minutes cut each time, I seem to remember a a bit of coverage about this. The idea is, in theory, that there will be one episode from each season, so the selection might be separately notable — or might not. (Is there any substantial coverage after the original every-new-title-gets-routine-coverage burst in September 2014?) It sounds like a box set waiting to happen, doesn't it? Maybe merging it to become a separate section of List of Saturday Night Live episodes might be the best idea. --Closeapple (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Listing rerun information is not appropriate at an 'episodes list' page; otherwise, every one would be filled with syndication cruft (imagine Seinfeld or Friends). As stated by some users above, I believe Saturday Night Live#Broadcast is the most appropriate place for your merger suggestion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 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 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saturday Night Live#Broadcast If this isn't some type of spinoff of SNL and a glorified re-packaging of reruns, not necessary. Maybe the info is pertinent in some capacity. Jppcap (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago de Almeida Feijóo Pinto[edit]

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

Unable to locate any sources to establish notability for this art collector. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources demonstrating how this person meets WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Ltd.[edit]

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

Advertising None of the references appear to independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 31 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 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Notifying past user Mindy Dirt although it seems they're not noticeably active. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rather non-notable entity. Wefihe (talk) 02:47, 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York City transit fares[edit]

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

A lot of Original research and unsourced material in present in this article. Also appears to be against WP:NOTGUIDE. A summary of this should be included in the main articles in question. Mdann52 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is akin to sending MetroCard (New York City) and SmartLink (smart card) for deletion, too. It does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE. It is summarized in these respective articles, but having a centralized page for this is a better way to go. epic genius (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse my keep because, well, this is notable. Just because someone did not place secondary sources doesn't mean they don't exist, as WP:BEFORE. epic genius (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, no longer "speedy" due to the "speed" of this discussion. epic genius (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per Epic Genius. A centralized page for the fares makes much more sense, and there's no OR in this article whatsoever. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not to be used to republish commercial information, and that is all this article consists of. I have been told by User:Epicgenius that there are no reliable secondary sources on this topic and that is also an indication that it should be deleted. --John (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @John: That is not actually what I meant. I said that the article doesn't need secondary sources for the fares. However, it is very easy for me to find secondary sources for the fare histories. epic genius (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. It is hard to read this other than as what I said but ok. If there are secondary sources, now is the time to bring them in as otherwise I think the article will need to be deleted. If there are other articles in this condition, they will also need to be brought in line with our norms. --John (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is what I am working to do right now. epic genius (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Many secondary sources exist about this topic. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epic Genius and DanTD. There is no OR in the article. Vcohen (talk) 09:41, 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 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A)This can and will overtime become severely outdated, B) We're not a guide - It all belongs on the travel operators website, –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are speaking about the first half of the article, right? Vcohen (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, this article is about historical and current fares. As current fares become historic, new fares become updated. In fact, all articles will become outdated over time. Second, there are a lot of transit operators represented here. WP:NOTGUIDE is when the article is named MTA fares or PATH fares. epic genius (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm well aware what the article is, We don't need an article on bus fares in the US or any country for that matter - There's nothing encyclopedic or even notable about it, NOTGUIDE is basically this entire article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IKON activity[edit]

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

There is already a page for this group here-> IKON (South Korean band). This seems to be a fans attempt to take things that were not allowed on the groups main page and create a separate page where they could have those things. Some of the problems with this page is poor sourcing, lots of unimportant information like a chart of every music music show appearance for the group, and repeating information from the main page just this time in chart form. Peachywink (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perfect example of WP:FANCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 31 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 19:48, 31 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 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to iKON (South Korean band). Per WP:LISTN, I don't think that this list serves any recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes. The important information can be included in the main article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Quiz[edit]

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

This article has been unreferenced for many years. I found many items from the quiz published in newspapers, but was only able to find one book which talked briefly about it. Perhaps someone else will know where to look to find information about this quiz, but if not it may be non-notable. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obviously better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 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 19:41, 31 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 18:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 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 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Korpela[edit]

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

No indication that Korpela meets our standards of notability. The article was deleted back in 2008 for the same reason, but no significant coverage has since been provided. Google News finds a few pieces by Korpela, but nothing that covers him in any detail. This old revision offers some additional sources, but still nothing significant. Huon (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the deletion rationale isn't quite accurate, because there is a 2013 news article in the Tucson Weekly which is, at least, about Korpela. But, erm, that's it! I can't see any other news coverage significantly about him online. His roles, though numerous, seem to be fairly minor in the grand scale of things. Still fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Do not delete Meets Notability Guidelines. It was decided before that the profile should not deleted because this individual was a part of very famous wrestling events and shows for many years. Since then he has become even more notable. This page needs to be updated to reflect his current TV job http://www.wgal.com/tv/news-team/34422916 And his current TV work - http://www.wgal.com/news/lancaster-powerlifter-world-record-holder-after-fighting-for-his-life/36001794 http://www.wgal.com/news/shooting-kills-1-in-york/34991632 http://www.wgal.com/news/suspects-wanted-in-york-county-police-officer-dragging/36308988 http://www.wgal.com/news/teenage-boy-faces-attempted-homicide-charge-after-stabbing-girl-police-say/35068640 http://www.wgal.com/news/couples-coasttocoast-journey-could-be-recordsetting/35540314 He was a commentator on these worldwide WWE shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuklvMzKkVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KevMCPKy3oY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESGfKTzZLBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R73CtsL2rYw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkaI2tttzyA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUzBFWW388Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQvlQQqaojw

Jack Korpela Commentary on popular WWE NXT show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyUiRhkpthM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osgO957i1kk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1xnMLazYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF-cLkrPo3M

Jack Korpela on Friday Night Smackdown, Worldwide show http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xj8jky_friday-night-smackdown-jack-korpela-interviews-aj_sport

Jack Korpela mentioned in all these articles http://insidepulse.com/2015/04/16/throwback-thursday-tough-enough-throwback-josh-mathews/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2014/0626/577416/edge-praises-new-nxt-star/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2013/0223/560612/backstage-fallout-from-smackdown/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/1120/558105/chris-jericho/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2011/0210/536380/vince-mcmahon/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/818767-wwe-nxt-5-sutiable-replacements-for-todd-grisham-on-commentary

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wadekellerdotcom/49006.shtml

Jack Korpela on the WWE Website

http://www.wwe.com/photos/superstars/jack-korpela

Topps Trading Card of Jack Korpela

https://www.google.com/search?q=jack+korpela&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=jack+korpela+top+cards&tbm=shop&spd=15145860151690426783 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragbike (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others who held Korpel's role for shorter periods of time are featured on Wikipedia with no issues. Like this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Romero

A detractor appears to be stalking this page with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragbike (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when the only defenses to avoid deletion are strings of YouTube links and personal attacks, then we are in trouble. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete -That "string of Youtube links" serves as evidence that this individual was a big part of world famous programming seen in over 167 countries. He is also one of the very few featured on the WWE website, one of the world's largest entertainment companies. I did not see a personal attack, only stating what I know to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragbike (talk • contribs) 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Where is the argument to overturn the decision Wikipedia made to keep the page a few years ago? The precedent was established by the experts. Since then Korpela has become more notable. His Twitter account is over 15K followers. He is still on TV. I'm not sure I see the logic here. We do know that at least one individual has threatened to make a movement to take the page down if he was not paid by Korpela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:100:D11:80B6:6671:E40A:3C20 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - despite the template at the article's talk page there was no decision to keep the page a few years ago. You can read the past discussions via the links above. The article was deleted - and where are the arguments to overturn that precedent established by the experts? Regarding the claims that people have threatened Korpela to "make a movement" if they're not paid, I'd like to see some evidence. Huon (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With only 4 participants, there doesn't seem to be enough to determine a consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Goodwin[edit]

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

Since my last (withdrawn) nomination years ago, all the changes have been is what this subject has done lately rather than explain why she is notable in any depth and the references provided in the last nomination does not provide what it really is as all it provides is credit to work as I must assume that it photo gallery of the photographer's work just like they do at Amateur Photographer or every photography magazine out there.

The references given in this page; all it does is provide a credit to the photographer plainly rather than talk more about the photographer like so many articles about photographers does. As with WP:COI editor, since the last nomination, all he did since then is lurk behind an IP address, thinking that nobody is going to catch him editing.

So from the last nomination, have my opinion changed? No. Also, aside all the notable artists this photographer has worked in, there is nothing in this page to hint notability other than a list of works with famous artists which is what social media does, something Wikipedia is not. I personally think however notable or not it is best if this article is deleted and started afresh unless this article can be edited to a satisfactory level per notability guidelines because in this current state, I don't see it passing any of WP:ARTIST. Donnie Park (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The articles in the external links seem like they would be grounds for notability, though they really should be online citations, and I am not entirely sold on the list heavy nature of the article. Still, with work it could be better and I'm not seeing great grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something is done which the editors had been given 6 years to do, I will have to stand by my decision. I wish I had the time to do something with it but I don't otherwise I think it is best deleted and started afresh without the blog nature of this article. As with the list, who added them in? Her partner as he admitted it in the last nomination and what did he do since then, hid behind an IP address thinking that nobody is going to detect him. Donnie Park (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the claim above that I am hiding behind an IP. Not hiding behind anything. At all. Still here. Any suggestions are welcome. I'm obviously pretty bad at doing this page, so why not help in stead? Patrick Cusse — 94.12.69.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The question is since the first nomination, what have you done in your edits other than namedropping famous musicians into the list of who your partner has worked with when you could had explain what is special about her work compared to famous concert photographers such as Pennie Smith, Mick Rock and Anton Corbijn? All I see her in the way of this edit is that she is just like every run-of-the-mill working photographers, who get their Wikipedia articles successfully nominated for deletion.

Also, if you claim to be not hiding; since then why did you abandon your user account (Patrickcusse SPA) following the last nomination as this gives an impression that you are trying to hide behind your edits in the hope that nobody will find out and I did unintentionally only because I began to very recently use the watchlist regularly which raised alarm because I saw no improvement through those years as this article is becoming more like an over-glorified blog than a encyclopedia article when it should be.

The question to ask of your partner's notability is what is special about her other than that she is your partner, why should she be special enough to have a Wikipedia page compared to so many similar photographers because anybody with a press pass can work with somebody famous. I don't feel that I am seeing any, neither have I see any of that evidence in that years since the first deletion and what are those references you gave, its just nothing without context and any photographers can get their work published in magazines nowadays. As with editing, there are tutorial out there to help you. Donnie Park (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, in the early stages there was criticism on the page, I changed it according to the wishes of editors, and the criticism stopped. Now it's back. I just continued as I did then, assuming it was ok. As for not using the ID to make the changes, wasn't aware that I had to, and back then it was a different email address, which I can no longer access, so I can't retrieve the password. I don't get the remark about the press pass, a press pass will not get you to work with somebody famous. The photographers you mention are famous, yes, completely. Christie is hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums, and some of the interviews mentioned in the article clearly illustrate that. It should make no difference if I'm her partner, her neighbour, or a total stranger. But points taken, all of them. Wouldn't it be easier then to just delete it and start again from scratch? (Patrick Cusse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.69.219 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums"... So does roadies, backing musicians, tour bus drivers and road managers, your claim does not scream notability to me, if it does why don't they all get Wikipedia articles as well. I don't see any lasting impact she did for the artists, thats all. I think its best if this decision is left to others to decide, also WP:NOTPROMOTION applies. Donnie Park (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question to me seems to be: how do you define notability? Wikipedia is information. You look at entries for actors, musicians etc, most just list personal life, career, filmography or discography. Not necessarily how good or bad they are. Just a list of data. So, when is a photographer notable? The criticism here seems to be that working on big productions for contemporary artists is not it. So when is an actor notable? Or a director? Or anybody else in the creative industry? Donnie seems to have decided that the photographer should not get a page because the road or the road manager does not. While I actually believe many tour managers do merit a factual wikipedia page of all the tours they've run, it also implies that anybody can take a photo and press a button and that artists will hire just anyone with a camera (or a tool belt in the case of a roadie) to do that job. PCusse (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a huge, huge problem. Even looking up artists famous in their field, the article will be laughingly small. The true issue here really has to do with too little knowledge about the art world itself. Well, that and the smugness that goes along with it. What it comes down to is that the majority of individuals here on Wikipedia have little to zero interest in the art world, therefore, the whole art world itself is considered not notable. With the possible exception of sci-fi and video games. (Oddly enough, those are areas that tend to be shunned by the art world!) If you showed up to create an user identity because you enjoy writing and are good at it AND just wanted to help Wikipedia (like I myself intended to do) well, then I must warn you that at this time Wikipedia has zero interest in wanting, attracting, or keeping writers. However, here is the one bright spot in all of this, a biography that is not on Wikipedia cannot be decimated by Wikipedia. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:02, 6 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 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, though Goodwin takes photos of well-known celebrities the coverage about her is minimal. For example she's asked for her opinion in a news article in The Independent. She has featured in the March 2015 edition of Practical Photography, but in what capacity I'm unsure. Quite clearly her photographs are used online and she is duly credited as the photographer. Maybe she is on the cusp of notability, but simply being a photographer does not take you over the WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE threshold on its own. If she wins an award, or has an in-depth article written about her in the future, then maybe things wil change. Sionk (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, coverage about her is not minimal. There are several linked right there in the article. The interview with Larry LeBlanc for one. Inside the entertainment industry he's the one who interviews everybody who is "notable". Several magazines (Digital Photographer, Practical Photography, Eos...) have interviewed Christie Goodwin about her work. When in addition to several photography magazines who feature her over several pages, Q Magazine does the same, would that not imply notability? How many magazines do you need? You mention the Practical Photography article and hasten to add "in what capacity I'm unsure", jumping to a conclusion. So, the article is not available online, so that implies the writer is lying? Well, that specific article is four pages about Christie Goodwin's work and technique. Happy to email you a pdf. PCusse (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PCusse I don't know there have been any evidence of feature articles but from the edits, it does not assert WP:notability in any shape or form, the point of this deletion, aside the excessive namedropping that does not support the article well. Plus all photography magazines does is provide a gallery of photographer's work and barely any coverages about them, just their work, which means that anybody who gets two magazine spreads at Amateur Photographer should get a Wikipedia page because it seems like it. If you don't agree, strip the list namedropping nature away from your article and this is what the article looks like...

Christie Goodwin (born 27 July 1962) is an English art photographer who specialises in music photography.

Christie Goodwin received her BA (hons) in Art Photography from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp in 1986 and worked freelance as a photojournalist for press agencies. In 2005 she moved from Belgium to London and made the move to music photography. She is mainly commissioned for album photography, DVD photography and official tour photography.

The state of this comes off as an article about somebody who is shoot at concerts, hence my point - worse is there are no sources for it to support them and this makes her look like another generic music photographer and all the sources do is provide credits, nothing else.

"The photographers you mention are famous...Christie is hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums" - the question now is, never mind the famous clients, what makes her as special to/as other famous concert photographers especially those I mentioned above?

"Wikipedia is information" - you seriously need to take a look at WP:PLUG because your partner's page look like a Wikipedia page disguised as a MySpace/Facebook like/Linkedin page.

Last of all, have you looked at the links provided at the reasons for nomination? I suggest you do so as opposed to protesting. Lastly before you can protest any further, I invite you to compare your CG's article to another photographer who I wrote about 5 years ago and you will know why your's is a sitting duck for deletion, which makes me think why did I bother to withdraw my nomination 6 years ago, because nothing has changed. Unless you can answer these, I do not want to hear anymore protesting and read the guidelines before you doing anything. Donnie Park (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie, you have made up your mind. Any arguments are rebuked with "I do not want to hear anymore protesting". It is a challenge to rewrite an article when it already has a big stamp on top saying it's worthless, and when arguments are labeled protests. You have a low opinion of somebody who shoots concerts, and you have made up your mind that she is a generic music photographer. In saying that you still implies that the people who hire her will just hire any generic photographer. Fair enough, you can think that. You could just offer to help rewrite it. Or just go ahead and delete it. I'm sure some day somebody will do a better job at writing this wikipedia page.PCusse (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidently, yesterday I was curious about a New York photographer I am familiar with and I wondered whether there was enough material to create a Wikipedia article about him. There were picture credits online in abundance, and several recent online articles about a 2015 project of his. There were several blog posts writing his praise. I decided, lacking any verifiable biographical info I wouldn't go ahead with the article.

Similarly with Goodwin there seems to be a bit of blog interest (the Larry LeBlanc piece appears to be on an industry listings website) and plenty of her credited photographs used by music magazines and music websites. Based on the Wikipedia article being sourced entirely to photo credits and there apparently being no verifiable biographical information available (not even on her website), I fall on the side of "Weak delete" (as I said above). On top of all that, the evident conflict of interest of the author suggests the article is being written prematurely for the wrong reasons.

With current, 21st century people, you would expect to find at least one article available about them online. The Hans G. Lehmann article written by Donnie Park at least has one very lengthy newspaper article which is entirely about him (the other sourcing is weak but his career seems largely pre-internet).

I'm not saying anything further on the subject, but wish Goodwin well with her career. IMO other input should be invited here, rather than two people talking it to death. Sionk (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA Mr. PCusse, where does the low opinion of concert photographers come from? I have a friend who works as one full time. At the end of the day, its either me who did this or somebody else and after six years, somebody had to nominate this. Just like Sionk said, anybody active in the 21st century can be achieved easily providing they meets the guideline, as for saving this article, can't you just get anybody about like your friend years ago. At the end of the day, you're just making excuses, if it gets deleted, later on, there is always WP:deletion review, so in that case, its best left with you to sort it out yourself because I am becoming tired of this argument when I already missed my Wiki article deadline months ago and me to rewrite, if only I had the time plus I got a list of 100 or so articles to do before my planned retirement from Wikipedia, which is why I don't take requests at all and most people would write articles based on their hobbies and interests and last of all still, where's your friend? Donnie Park (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Connolly (musician)[edit]

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

Dubious notability musician. Article was created in 2009 and content has not been significantly aletered since. It was speedied on 5 February 2009‎ but the tag was removed the following day by another editor who added an external link (which is now dead). Neither this editor nor the creator has edited since. The article makes no claim to notability; the nearest it comes is saying that Connolly played with "the legendary violinist Geoffrey Castle", so legendary that he is a red link. Apart from one CD release in February 2009, but with no evidence of how successful this was, there is nothing to show any continuing notable career. The suspicion is that this article was created in an attempt to prmote the CD, an idea that is not dismissed by the originator's name, Barokas PR. Emeraude (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - quick search didn't reveal any additional sources that would establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 14:05, 31 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 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything better. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstant Infosolutions[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations describes the evidence. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishjain03 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Top Mobile App Development Company in India, USA - Konstantinfo". Konstant Infosolutions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy later if needed as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 1 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 17:51, 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 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erkin Osmanli[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 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£} 09:21, 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£} 09:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be SPA-created fanpage. Sources are all YouTube vids and other web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 6 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 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Herewini[edit]

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

Non-notable Warrant Officer Class One. Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 7 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 17:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. But query, at what level are RSMs/Sergeant Majors notable? Only at army level? Corps? Division? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILPEOPLE has guidelines. For someone of this rank, being awarded something like the Victoria Cross would qualify them. clpo13_(talk) 00:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Sergeant Major of the Army is considered notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILPEOPLE. Herewini doesn't appear to have satisfied any of the criteria. He's a Member of the Order of the British Empire, but that's about it. clpo13_(talk) 00:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and comments listed above. EricSerge (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither warrant officers nor MBEs have any inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER I'm afraid. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 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 00:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2-way iSMS[edit]

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

SMS product from a Finnish company (Bookit), notability not established. Strongly suspect this article has been created by someone who works for the company. Among other evidence, the company has copied this article to their own website. They have plugged in a pile of references, but none of them seem to be high quality. SJK (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much better. SwisterTwister talk 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 31 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 17:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. References are not quality, and quantity is meaningless. We aren't a directory for every business that has several minor listings, just the truly notable ones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 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 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Thakur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article came to my attention after a batch of edits by User:Adv.joginderthakur. It survived a previous AfD as "no consensus". Reviewing its text, it has always been effectively autobiographical ("Students of Jammu and Kashmir showed faith in me when they elected me as National Delegate") and is remorselessly detailed (training camps attended, blood donor records). The best reference concerns the subject presenting a memorandum to a committee, the remainder are passing mentions as a vice-president of the Chenab Valley People's Association. These do not look sufficient to establish encyclopaedic notability, nor are my searches locating anything better. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:13, 31 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 17:49, 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 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiola Aburto[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 07:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 7 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 17:48, 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 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Majesty International 2015[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources conform WP:RS. Non-notable year version of a pageant that is deemed not notable itself (= no article present) The Banner talk 07:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 7 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 17:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG agreed. Legacypac (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. it appears to have a lot of sources but everything listed (And everything I've found) is psychology or university websites connected with this event. it gets very little third party coverage, only 2 gnews hits LibStar (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 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 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary sources (all just publications of the Symposium itself). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:12, 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 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnus Mero Kura[edit]

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

Unaired TV talk show lacking references reddogsix (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been CSD tagged twice (once removed by Bishworaj Poudel, the article creator), PROD'ed and deleted once but Bishworaj Poudel recreated it. He is not only the author but also is the creator of this show as well as Bishworaj Poudel, an autobiography that has been deleted twice. I'm skeptical of a TV show created by an 18 year old that will be broadcast on "various channels" but has no actual episodes produced yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have CSD'd the article. It is a copy of text from http://motivationalgyan.com/satyamev-jayate-aamir-khan/. reddogsix (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that website took its content from Satyamev Jayate (TV series). So, it ends up that a website took content from Wikipedia and then a Wikipedian editor took the website content and used it on a different article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. I removed the CSD. reddogsix (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is still not valid to copy entire paragraphs from another Wikipedia article and use it in a different article without providing attribution. And the chances that Sunnus Mero Kura, as a TV show, would duplicate the content and approach of Satyamev Jayate is remote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 31 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 17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear unwarranted self promotion. SPA created ands full of redlinks Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rankin family of Geelong[edit]

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

Not notable as a family in any significant sources; not seeing the value of having a family article when all its members have their own articles, and the family article doesn't contain anything that couldn't be in those. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

· Keep - But happy to prune it back to a few paragraphs. You have a good point in that there is duplication with the six or so Rankins, who have their own pages. Much of the material could be relocated to these seperate article; however, it would still be useful to have a separate page that shows the links between them and very succinctly mentions the family's connection to the Geelong district. MPCR (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep - article should be condensed. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Seems to me like the family as a whole does have significant coverage in reliable sources, though the article currently reads a bit too much like a family history and not enough like an encyclopedia article. If the family has got significant coverage then I see nothing wrong with summarising the biographies of the notable characters into the 'parent' family article. See for example Category:Sports families, of which Ablett family springs to mind in this particular case. Also Harvey brothers is a great example of this type of article and is excellent quality. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely support an article on the Ablett family, who are actually notable as a whole as well as individually. But these people seem like a random bunch that we happen to have articles on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at this again, I'd probably say I'm a weak keep. Few of the sources, except a few newspaper articles, appear to be entirely about the family, but where do we draw the line of "significant coverage"? I can certainly see the point of view of The Drover's Wife and Frickeg, but I think that the newspaper articles and the book mentions that stretch several pages (ignoring the self-published family history) together amounts to significant coverage. I also like the work that has been done on the article in the interim, it has a much better tone and clearer scope. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These people are all notable individually, but I'm not seeing the coverage of them as a family. A substantial portion of the article is essentially duplication of information that belongs on each individual page. Although the sources are difficult to examine as they're mostly offline, from what I can tell there is precisely one source dealing with them as a family, which appears to be an article in an obscure local journal by a member of the Rankin family!! The fact that a family has multiple notable individuals does not lead to notability; there has to be coverage of the family itself. For example, in Jenks24's Ablett family example above, there are at least four sources cited dealing with the family and not just the various individuals. (Harvey brothers I'm less convinced about, but I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough in the area to pursue deleting a GA.) In short, the family as distinct from the individuals does not come close to meeting WP:GNG. Some of the information could be merged back into individual articles. Frickeg (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been condensed. I think there is strong interest in them as a family group - particularly Edwin, Cliff and Bert - and appreciate the suggestion of including them in the sporting families category. MPCR (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify a comment, which has been made, please note that most of the sources are actually available online (i.e. 18 of 27 references). The newspaper reports and sports magazine articles - quite often covering the family rather than individual members - are all available online through the NLA Trove collection of digitalized journals. In any case, hopefully the significant changes made to the article, taking on board everyone’s comments, should mean that the retention of the article in its present form will suit most people. Thanks again for everyone’s comments - this has been a useful experience for me as a new contributor.MPCR (talk) 04:24, 25 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 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The main issue raised in arguments for deletion seems to be that while the individuals are all notable and have their own entries, the family is not. The family's notability and the significance of the father-son and sibling-to-sibling football records was certainly not evident in the first draft, but I believe that the condensing of the text and revisions have addressed this issue. The family's significance in the Geelong district is discussed in a separate chapter (pp. 81-94) in Three William McDonalds and is also noted (albeit usually in passing) in a number of newspapers and journals. The significance of the father-son career-gap record (which still stands as the AFL record) and the significance of the records set by Cliff and Bert Rankin as two brothers (i.e. first brothers to be both captain and vice-captain in a team and first brothers to be selected in the same Victorian team) are also noted in many of the newspaper articles and sporting magazines, which have been cited. These aren't individual achievements and, I think, have to be considered through a family lens, just like many of the other articles in the 'sporting families' category. Similarly, the issue of the controversy in 1923 of the dropping of Bert Rankin and his brother refusing to take the field in support of him, is also a family issue, in my view, and certainly features heavily in newspaper reports at the time and even resulted in a league investigation.MPCR (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck !vote - you cannot !vote twice. Frickeg (talk) 23:12, 31 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 17:43, 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 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Morillo[edit]

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

Simply nothing convincingly enough to suggest better notability and improvement (not even enough for better local notability like Amigos For Kids which I improved) with the best being found this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 31 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 18:38, 31 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 17:43, 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 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

URBR[edit]

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

Clear and cut case of no better notability and improvement and I found nothing better than the usual music websites and their social media hasn't been updated since 2013 with their website also closed thus suggesting this no longer exists...as well this being speedy and PROD material. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's as little content in the article as there is punctuation in the nomination. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 07:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete - self-published sources, non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 31 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 18:38, 31 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 17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't find any sources that could be used to improve the article. I don't really think it's speedy material (if it was, why bring it to AfD?), but then I don't really know what "case of no better notability and improvement" means. Sources, if they exist, are likely to exist in Brazillian media, but I didn't find much from a Portuguese Google search either. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not because there is no English source that there is source. (My Portugese is not that good ;)) warpozio (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Via[edit]

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

There's simply nothing obvious at all to suggest better notability and improvement with my searches finding only this and it also seems her website is now closed with no further obvious recent activity (frankly it seems she's mainly settled and had a family). Frankly, this also hasn't changed since in recent years and not overall as well since starting in October 2004. Pinging Derek R Bullamore, MelanieN, WJetChao and Monni95. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:V Monni (talk) 22:01, 25 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 18:37, 31 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 17:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Crafts[edit]

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

Obvious case of no better notability and improvement with the best my searches finding this, this, this and this and this current version is even speedy and PROD material. Pinging Whpq, Vegaswikian, Rich Farmbrough and author Zanimum. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - no sources, self promotion article. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources fairly easy to find. Six added so far. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 24 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 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 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 17:41, 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 00:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petrol Mobile[edit]

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

This MVNO does not provide service anymore << VelkovJR >> (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing obvious and maybe Wikimandia can search as well. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 24 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 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 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 17:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is indiscriminate collection of information; with no end to addition. We cannot convert Wikipedia to Yellow Pages. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:LISTPURP.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as this article serves its exact purpose as any other subject. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 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 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Pugh[edit]

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

WP:BLP, resting entirely on a single namecheck of his existence in a news blurb about the election of his successor rather than any actual coverage of him, of a person notable only as the mayor of a small town with a population of just 17K. And furthermore, the entire article quite literally consists of a single sentence asserting his existence, and contains no other content of substance. This is not adequate to satisfy WP:NPOL #3 — a mayor has to serve in a city considerably larger than this, or be well-sourced and substantive enough to satisfy WP:GNG, to become eligible for an article on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 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 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Brien (mayor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, resting entirely on a single primary source with not a titch of reliable source coverage shown, of a person notable only as the mayor of a small town with a population of just 17K. And furthermore, the entire article quite literally consists of a single sentence asserting his existence, and contains no other content of substance. This is not adequate to satisfy WP:NPOL #3 — a mayor has to serve in a city considerably larger than this, or be well-sourced and substantive enough to satisfy WP:GNG, to become eligible for an article on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No press coverage to substantiate WP:POLITICIAN. Jppcap (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete both, a7 (webcontent with no indication of notability), a11 (made up by article creator). NawlinWiki (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkham (TV series)[edit]

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

This series is apparently the product of the article's creator, a home-made YouTube-based, computer-generated series (what's "RTV"?) under the channel "Arkham". Clearly not notable, with views in the low two digits each. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete (both) per nom, not notable. Unless someone wants to clarify which "RTV" the article refers to. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Arkham (tv show) as well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly non-notable program, airing to trivially small audiences on an insignificant TV feed. Delete both. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:54, 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 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaivna[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, only spoken of in a 2015 self-published book. Article creator seems to be on a mission to promote it here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, seems to be an attempt to turn the neologism into a word via Wikipedia. RailwayScientist (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really find any sources on this. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done a "scholar" search, and I cannot find any scholarly commentary on the subject. As far as I can tell, this word comes entirely from a single book by a single author, and there has been no notice by secondary sources. As such, it clearly fails WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know if it, but its not yet mainstream with any substantial third party references - name for a method really. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is self promoting stuff - Damien Raczy 05:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete I am the author of the book and believe the article should be deleted because have never felt comfortable with the references appearing in the lede and am concerned they are inconsistent with undue weight. Snowden is right that Gaivna is not a word. I'm not sure that it's a methodology because there are no practices. In a way that seems optimistic to me. However he is right that there is that potential. --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:03, 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 delete per WP:G12 -- copyright violation — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEO Connection Mid-Market Convention[edit]

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

Self-promotional article ("The success of the mid-market is celebrated") about non-notable event (speedied once in 2014), recent re-creation with a possible COI about CEO Connection. A brief and neutral summary can easily be included in the main article, assuming the organization is notable to begin with. No independent in-depth coverage in the current article or via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AS per above, this falls far short of notable RailwayScientist (talk) 17:21, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winston McKenzie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO as he has never won an election. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated", and as far as I can tell the only notable sources of him are just news reports about his changing parties or running for office - given that he lost, I don't think he can pass the notability guidelines. RailwayScientist (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 41 citations in the article. Most of the coverage about him is as a (repeatedly) failed candidate, and candidates do not generally meet WP:NPOL. However, he has also had some significant roles in UKIP, a major, national party, which counts for something, and there are a few sources about him prior to his political career (albeit most of these are about the McKenzie brothers as a whole). His main claim to fame may well be an unsuccessful political career, but it is one that has attracted its share of publicity along the way. He is a figure with some notoriety in British politics. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with everything above. He has a reasonable degree of notability as a boxer and as a perennial candidate and also his spokesperson role in UKIP. None of these on their own would necessarily make him notable enough, but I would suggest taken together they qualify him for an article. Frinton100 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received significant attention despite (or perhaps because of) his repeated losses, thus meeting the notability requirement of WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with things stated here, he is a notable candidate who has had roles in a major UK political party (UKIP) and this article should stay up. (Z2a (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I withdraw my request and agree with the people who have demonstrated his notability. Sorry! RailwayScientist (talk) 13:19, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2003-04 Wilmington College Lady Quakers basketball team[edit]

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

NCAA D3 women's basketball season from more than ten years ago. Nothing notable, fails WP:SIGCOV JTtheOG (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JTtheOG (talk) 9:10, 14 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 redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Cova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. Biographical content is trivial. Survived prior AFD based only on now-deprecated multiple nomination criterion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - Without having done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, it seems like a redirect would be the best course of action at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known, many nominations to awards, Penthouse Pet, 21x interwiki, notable. Even if not meet nonsense of pornbio, common sense say - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - nominations or winning a scene award do not meet current guidelines, Pet of the month isn't good enough not even Pet of the year seems to be either, wikis are not a reliable source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbow unicorn: wikis are not a reliable source? Of course, but is not the point. If article exist on 22!!! Wikipedias and few users try delete it on en.Wikipedia because not meet the guideline of the new version of pornbio - this is nonsense. Somewhere we have to draw the line for this folly. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias have their own notability guidelines. Some permit BLP articles without good sources, something we find unacceptable here. Some have an article just because it exists here. In en.Wikipedia, we rely on non-trivial coverage by reliable sources (GNG) to support verifiability, NPOV, and WP:NOR. As for PORNBIO, it is the most permissive guideline in Wikipedia. It says certain porn stars may be notable even they are shunned by reliable media and fail GNG. Consensus is that porn award nominations are given out too freely to indicate notability. It is unlikely that the nominations PORNBIO criterion will be brought back any time soon. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Milgram Forrest[edit]

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

The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. It is unclear how the references 1 & 2 relate to the article subject at all. isfutile:P (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable, awarded major national award - viz: Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion.

...and WP:TROUT nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The Keep comment does not respond to the lack of significant third party coverage raised in the AfD. Also, the comment above breaches WP:NPA and is not constructive. The articles submitted to AfD were detailed in another AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Bowen&oldid=686191498, by user User:NewYorkActuary due to the similarities in terms of lack of significant third party coverage. Perhaps the article author could attach sources which demonstrate significant third party coverage to satisfy notability. isfutile:P (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~. because my search on Proquest Newspapers found only 4 articles, all in the Leicester Mercury, the newspaper she worked for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are the dates? Though the article gives her start date, it seems that she moved on to other things pretty quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I can't find a start date at the newspaper. She moved form Canada to Leicester in the "late 1980s" and became active in charity work. I see no indication of what she did during the first 3 decades of adult life. Here's some text from her Leicester Mercury obit "She returned to the UK in the late 1980s. She then worked in a variety of roles and was instrumental in the setting up of the Brit School for Performing Arts and Technology, in London.In the late 1990s she was artistic director and chief executive of the Brewhouse Arts Centre in Burton upon Trent. She was also a founder of the Leicestershire environmental charity the Ken Chamberlain Trust, a director of children's charity Toys on the Table Trust and regional director of the Prince's Trust East Midlands." Apparently a philanthropist, as well as a social activist. Not clear. If the award suffices, then I'm not objecting. But it's odd how minor and local the coverage is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that reference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep if she's won a notable award, she's notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she awarded Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion - if the latter is notable enough for an article, then it makes sense that the award recipients are equally as notable. Atsme^📞📧 22:35, 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 00:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Satterfield[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as I am unable to find any substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find any significant third party coverage, and the references in the article are not RS. isfutile:P (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The references in the article are mostly not reliable sources / passing mentions; the sheer volume of them in the article is good example of reference bombing. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OnDeck[edit]

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

This is a WP:AFC acceptance that was substantially smaller and devoid of the overblown nature of this one, though that also suffered slightly from WP:CITEKILL.

Since acceptance to has grown into a huge promotional exhibition of WP:BOMBARD. It is a blatant piece of trade puffery and advertorial Fiddle Faddle 16:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging interested subject users Bearian, DGG and [email protected]. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. too promotional. Better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is quite badly written and over-linked, but I'm not sure that WP:TNT or WP:SPAM apply. If nobody fixes it in the next six days, then I'd go along with DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to permit time for Bearian's suggestion to unfold. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Bearian's intent, as this company might be notable, although I'm on the other side of the fence and looking at the article, it is so infused with promotional material and MOS issues that it would be better to simply blow it up and start over. But give it a week and see if any work is done on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial changes since nomination Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No indication of notability Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L combinator[edit]

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

No link, uncategorized, no sources, maybe hoax. 333 -blue 11:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:CSD#A7. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:14, 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 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tedros Yabio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS - hasn't played in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near notable and fails to give enough good sources RailwayScientist (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully-professional league or senior international football, and not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 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 and redirect to Hateful Monday. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lions and Jackals[edit]

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

An EP from the band Hateful Monday. Although there are loads of web hits, I'm so far not convinced there are sources to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. It could alternatively be redirected to the artist article per WP:AFDP#Music, and both I and TheLongTone (talk · contribs) have edited towards such a solution, but since an IP keeps insisting, here we are. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Sources fail to establish notability of record, & content of article is far too insubstantial to be worth an article, which of courdse would need more reliable sources.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or simply delete as either way, this is not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U4 (Hamburg U-Bahn)[edit]

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

Not necessary and nothing new to the article on the Hamburg U-Bahn. rayukk | talk 10:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think this should at least be given a chance. Most transit systems (London Underground, New York City Subway, even light systems like RTD Bus & Light Rail) have articles for each line in the system. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above, and it could be expanded with information that would be too specific for the main article. RailwayScientist (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CHANCE applies here. Forbidding that, merge to main article Hamburg U-Bahn. epic genius (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: WP:CHANCE is good, WP:NPOSSIBLE is even better.

Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Yeah, but still, there are some editors who will vote "delete" because they have not found any sources yet. I say give 'em a chance. ;) epic genius (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an unreferenced uncategorized picture gallery. Why are there not any articles for existing lines? If you say "keep", then you should help create the entire system. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Secondarywaltz: The argument It's an unreferenced uncategorized picture gallery is not valid, please refer to WP:NPOSSIBLE that reads "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." The idea that If you say "keep", then you should help create the entire system is just ludicrous. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm This is really a vote to keep. @Sam Sailor: I get pissed of when people vote to keep an article that has just been dumped, but they want others to do the improvement work. The idea of creating articles for every line is not so "ludicrous" because, as you have noted below, they are all awaiting conversion. Note that I don't say "translation", because it takes lots more work than that to do it properly. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references have been added. We usually have individual articles for lines of major metro systems. Detail would be overwhelming for main article. —Kusma (t·c) 19:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball clause : Not only does subway and railway lines often survive AfD, if anybody had checked out de:U-Bahnlinie 4 (Hamburg) they would have known that there's a solid 25-30k of material just waiting to be translated and no shortage of online sources for those who care to search. Pinging nom for their reconsideration. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a specific line on a major rail transit system, much in the same way the even shorter Purple Line (Los Angeles Metro) is. The German WP aritcle demonstrates a ton of topic-specific content distinct from the general Hamburg U-Bahn article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Md Abdul Malik[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources of this Md Abdul Malik, including when searching by alternative name "Abdul Malik Manik" and by Bengali script name, so does not meet WP:BASIC. An upazila is a sub-district (3 levels below national), a union is an even smaller political subdivision, and the grand total of coverage is a sentence in each of a handful of newspapers saying he spoke at this or that non-notable meeting, so does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Worldbruce (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional page for local politician. --Soman (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate[edit]

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

DOESN'T PASS WP:GNG Aha... (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... routine fundraising sources and the usual for non-notable startup article created by a one-and-done SPA, including a list of questionable awards. - Brianhe (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 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. Sandstein 07:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland Security Digital Library[edit]

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

Non-notable digital library. None of the available sources appears to be in depth, reliable and independent. There are lots of single-paragraph summaries, press releases and spin, but no critical evaluation. (Note that I don't have access to the library itself.) SPA created. PROD removed without substantial improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Not independently notable as it seems. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have a lot of jargon. Not notable and ott. Jppcap (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adil-E-Jahangir[edit]

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

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

Film with no remarkable features. KDS4444^Talk 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "no remarkable features" isn't much of a deletion rationale. @MichaelQSchmidt: has very offered some advice to you at User_talk:KDS4444#some_.22sage.22_advice... on how you might do some WP:BEFORE work at WP:INDAFD on looking for reliable sources for India-related articles. May I ask, have you done so in this case? G. P. Sippy was clearly a notable Indian filmmaker. It seems likely to me that this article may meet criterion #1 at Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability, though there is no evidence of that at present. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, this sort of thing makes me wonder what it is you're here for. I gather it's to delete stuff. Not impressed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I wonder if you would be just as unimpressed if you felt I were here to create multiple articles with no sourcing or evidence of notability... Because you should feel the same about either. I personally believe there are a lot more articles on Wikipedia (generally) than seem warranted, especially those which have mediocre or no referencing. I do not deny this; I am here to improve the project, and some of that improvement means nominating for deletion and encouraging a discussion about those articles which do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Bringing that up here in this deletion discussion, however, is not relevant to the topic at hand, which is the notability of this particular film. Shawn in Montreal, you and I have already discussed the issue with regard to Soulpepper Theatre, and I conceded without reservation that the subject was in fact notable. Seeing references to support that claim made all the difference. None of that matters here, though I understand why you have brought it up. Let's stick to the business at hand, however. Alright? KDS4444^Talk 19:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten if we had any interaction at the AfD for Soulpepper, which was an incredibly ill-considered Afd, a case where there were ample sources but a complete and utter lack of WP:BEFORE work on the part of the nominator. In this case, Wikipedia:INDAFDKI suggests that a film this old may be unlikely to have any online sources at all. Will it be deleted on that basis? Perhaps.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: in guideline understanding the some older films might not be sourcable online, WP:OEN offers notability might be found if "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Being one of G.P. Sippy's first, this might be reasonable consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AND through WP:INDAFD: "Adil-E-Jahangir" "Adil-E-Jehangir" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw no significant coverage in reliable sources in those two searches. The best one was the passing reference in the The Times of India bio article, which I saw you've added, along with a couple of others. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline allows that in some cases a demand for WP:GNG for older films is unreasonable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though nominated contrary to the WP:NPP instructions of WP:NPPCHK and WP:NPPNICE, I think we can keep this brand new stub article as Times of India tells us it was one of the very first films by notable director G.P. Sippy. As clarified at WP:OEN, it can be decided whether or not being one of the very first works of a notable filmmaker qualifies it as notable since "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to keep a note of that WP:OEN essay, because it certainly encapsulates a lot of what I've come to believe. We know that Sippy was a significant figure in Indian cinema. We know that it co-starred Meena Kumari, described as "one of the most prominent actresses to have appeared on the screens of Hindi Cinema" and mentioned in the Golden Age section of Bollywood. It's not at all surprising that online sources to articles are not available. I don't share the nominators sentiment that there are too many articles in Wikipedia per WP:NOTPAPER. I think that Sippy and Kumari were such that we have a reasonably solid basis for believing that WP:OEN does apply. OEN is of course an essay, and one written by Michael - but I think it's a persuasive argument. Not for every film, of course, but I believe for this one. Finally, Wikipedia:PERFECTION is policy. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the film finds mention in a few books as Adl-e-Jehangir (1955). Latest citation of the film is in a recently released book Talat Mahmood -The Velvet Voice published 2015. Have expanded and added refs. Kaayay (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian slang words[edit]

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

Please tell me we do not need to retain this.... KDS4444^Talk 09:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic article in the current state. Jim Carter 10:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-argument Articles are not deleted because of their state; we are discussing wether the topic deserves an article, not wether it is a good article. RailwayScientist (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, articles are not deleted based on their state. However, we are not here questioning the subject's notability. This article which is actually a list can be evaluated on their state, and the current state is unencyclopedic and with no educational value, at the moment, it doesn't deserve an article but with credible improvements (which includes, restructuring, sourcing, expanding) it may in future deserve one, we are discussing about the current article in question not the topic. And you understand that many articles are deleted regularly for their current state and then someday it gets recreated (well formatted, well sourced). Best, Jim Carter 16:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but redirect No other dialects have their own pages for slang, butit should redirect to a page on Indian English words not used in other varietes of English RailwayScientist (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-argument There are many such pages List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases, Category:Lists of slang, List of LGBT slang terms (not a dialect, but still its a slang page) List of South African slang words, Category:American slang,British slang and many more. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 4:13 PM Saturday, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@RailwayScientist: FWIW, "No other dialects..." - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is good if you not counter regular's arguments as long as your own argument is not strong enough. Jim Carter 16:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No other dialects have their own pages for slang". Saw Quebec French profanity? kashmiri ^TALK 20:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Urbandictionary~~ anywhere. Or delete. Slang is too messy/variable/regional/unreliable of a topic. Alsee (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain or Redirect to ~~Category:Indian slang~~ Wiktionary I am really a novice on wikipedia. I don't know whether I am allowed to discuss this issue, so in case I am not, any wikipedian is requested to remove this.
The language situation in India is, of course, very different from the language situation in Great Britain or the USA, where English is the native language. Slang is clearly influenced by the linguistic situation in India, not only with respect to English but also with respect to Indian languages. It is also influenced by characteristics of Indian society at large.^[1]. As there are other pages dedicated on this same article, I think due to the diversity in India languages, this article is certainly not irrelevant. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ STUDENT SLANG AT IIT MADRAS: A LINGUISTIC FIELD STUDY

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

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

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The English Wikipedia is not an English dictionary and certainly is not a dictionary of poorly-sourced Indian slang, despite other crappy lists existing. If these can be properly sourced they should be added to the appropriate language Wiktionary. Lumping them all together in a list doesn't get away from the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there are similar articles like this one (List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases) on Wikipedia and keeping in mind that, it is next to impossible to find origination of every slang term (some are just... used without any proper reason). I think irrespective of whether they are properly sourced or not, they should be moved/redirected to Wiktionary. And yes Wikipedia shouldn't be made a dictionary. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 08:53, 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. Of note is that while Deb has the word "delete" in bold in their !vote, in their further comment they proposed that the article be reverted to an earlier version, which essentially equates to keeping the article. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. Per the discussion herein, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David McLane[edit]

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

With the current version and its current state, it's not easy to comfortable establish better notability and improvement aside from being known as the organizer and founder of those wrestling groups and my searches found links here, here, here, here and here which may suggest this can be better improved but I'm not entirely convinced of that so here we are at AfD. Pinging Deb, Trackinfo, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and author Mvsrhollywood. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, but I am not even sure what you are saying is wrong with the notability of the subject of this article, or anything that would make it subject to deletion. If you can articulate that, it would give me some reason to respond. This article certainly has been whacked since the last time I visited, maybe the significance has had some key points mysteriously disappear. Trace the wikilnks. Clearly McLane is THE wrestling promoter in the genre of Women's Professional Wrestling. He created at least 4 major promotions; one that was on worldwide television for four years with himself as an on camera star (and the subject of a recent documentary recounting the camp phenomenon it became); another appears to be on a current revival into a third season. Wikipedia has articles on decidedly smaller two-bit wrestling promoters who have never seen a moment of actual television coverage much less global syndication. And there is the other sports programming he has created and produced. Can this article get improved? Certainly--even by digging into the history of deleted information that used to be in this article. Is there a complaint about its writing style looking like an advertisement, yes. None of that has anything to do with the already established notability of the subject, which is unquestionable.

This is exactly the ill founded, shot in the dark, fishing expedition that I complained about leading to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal. I'll suggest you stop this waste of time. Withdraw the attack on the existence of this article and lets start a discussion about improving this article, an article that has been mangled by too many editors and wrestling fanatics over the years. You do not improve articles by deleting them. You are going down the wrong path. Trackinfo (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me it's fairly blatant advertising, and I considered a speedy when I first looked at it. It reads like a CV. If no one is interested in fixing that, then deletion is inevitable. Deb (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my !vote/comments below, which addresses this point. I wanted to take exception to the last sentence of your statement. I don't have the enthusiasm for Wikipedia that I once did for one simple reason, namely that we're moving farther away from being a proper information resource and more in the direction of a popularity contest which reflects whatever happens to trend on any given day, and that such "popularity" (plus other intangibles such as Google hits) should determine the encyclopedia's content. If you wish to believe that someone who is chiefly notable for activities in decades past is really not notable, due to how long ago those activities occurred and the fact that any existing sources aren't going to automatically fall out of the sky for you, that's fine. You shouldn't burden others with such an stance, however. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Actually, to make a more constructive suggestion, I propose we return to the last good edit and work from there. Deb (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement that this article needs a rewrite. That does not mean the article should be subject to deletion. I'm starting the rewrite in my sandbox because I do not believe I should be responding to your improper AfD like a trained monkey. It is a perversion of the AfD process to do this and both of you as experienced editors should know better. Trackinfo (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking? The current version is entirely questionable and is appropriately aligned with AfD and no one here is saying this is "improper" and "trained monkey". SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The edit mentioned contains a number of unsourced claims, including some relating to a drug company. A complete rewrite is in my opinion needed. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there are delete votes relative to the content I am succumbing to the extortion of this improper AfD. I have added significantly more sourcing. How 16 sources were not adequate confounds me. The previous version of the article had issues that could be solved by editing the content, not deletion. How anything in the previous version indicated this should have been an AfD absolutely shocks me. But now there are 39 covering each phase. It is an unquestionable keep, or a precedent set by this deletion would take wikipedia's article count well below 5,000,000. Trackinfo (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty here, and even if the overall quality of the sources isn't great, it must surely be enough. Re-write would be good, though Tippex for the soul (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a toughie, leaning towards weak keep – Don't we have a page somewhere imploring people to use common sense? I guess most folks snorted "It's only an essay" and shut it out of their mind. As far as common sense goes, if he has Leroy Neiman doing work for him, then of course he's somebody. Also as far as common sense goes, the article in its current state is hideous. The claims of advert and CV are dead-on. I think I would only watch any of his programs for the same reason I would watch reruns of The Lawrence Welk Show: for kicks because I'm bored. However, don't we also have WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Oh yeah, those are also essays. Regardless, we're here to judge the notability of the subject, correct? More importantly than the tie to Neiman I mention above, there's mentions that he's lurked around the bottom rungs of professional wrestling (including in on-air roles) for decades, that he's produced multiple television programs which have recieved national exposure, that's he's promoted concerts in stadiums. The sources aren't the greatest, and it doesn't add up to much, but it does add up to notability. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audley Retirement[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP as I can't find any substantial coverage in RS whatsoever. It's basically a spamvertisment created by a PR agency on the company's behalf. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. Pinging past users Just Chilling and Jimfbleak. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom, spam, advert or similar. Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Euryalus (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The WP:COI editor has followed correct disclosure procedures etc. in preparing this article. This is clearly a firm going about its business but is there evidence that it is notable for an encyclopaedia? A Highbeam search turns up just a few routine announcements; a Guardian search is better, with this describing the firm as "one of the biggest developers of retirement villages" in the UK, and passing quotation in a couple of other articles [7], [8], the latter a piece based on the firm's publicised research). However while these do establish the firm as prominent in their local sector, I don't think they amount to demonstration of WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuérdame[edit]

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

Unneeded dab page, per WP:TWODABS © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tbhotch, this now has three entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this appears to be a relatively common title for Spanish songs [9]. I've added a few of the more prominent, there are many others (not all might have existing mentions in articles at this time). older ≠ wiser 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. Erick (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS; unnecessary page when there are only two notable entries and one is the primary topic. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SNUGGUMS, you obviously have little understanding of MOS:D. Entries don't need an article (or, indeed, to be notable) to be a valid entry, se MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For an overall page with a bunch of notable entries, perhaps not, but WP:TWODABS says having a DAB page is not needed when only two notable entries exist with a primary topic since the primary topic can simply have a referral note linking to the other notable entry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: no, you're misquoting WP:TWODABS. It says "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic ...". Not "only two notable entries ...". This dab page has a bunch of appropriate entries and is a valid dab page. PamD 21:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was basically paraphrasing, and am certain that "topics" in that instance excludes subjects not notable enough for own articles Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the term "topics" was used deliberately rather than "articles" precisely because of such misinterpretations. older ≠ wiser 22:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, your 'certainty' means you can't have read the links I directed you to, as per MOS:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid dab page with several useful entries. Possibly move the album to primary topic and the dab page to Recuérdame (disambiguation) PamD 21:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I considered PamD's suggestion too, but the album with an article looks like it is probably non-notable; a WP:RM may occur at some point but I don't think it's a cut-and-dry primary topic. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was about to withdrawn it, but I see Snuggums supported it. Can it still be closed per either Snow/withdrawn by nom? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not as long as there's an outstanding Delete !vote. @SNUGGUMS:? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence. Recuérdame (Yolandita Monge album) is currently tagged as unreferenced and as potentially lacking notability. Recuérdame (La 5ª Estación song) is referenced but is currently just a stub (which is not enough for songs to have a separate article per WP:Notability (music)#Songs). If either one of these fail notability, I'd say delete since it would be pointless to have a DAB with only one notable topic or no notable topics at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not currently a consideration for disambiguation. The only consideration is ambiguity of topics (not articles) within Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 00:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers who have scored a century in all formats of cricket[edit]

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

This is not a notable statistic; on the surface it may look like a measure of a player's batting prowess, but in reality it's just a statistical curiosity. Fact is that scoring a single career Test or ODI century is a trivial achievement for any player with an international career of any length; and scoring a Twenty20 International century is still a bit of a random achievement. Therefore this list sort of ends up being "list of cricketers with Test careers who have scored a Twenty20 International century" – and, indeed, if I do my own statistical deep-dive, I find that there have been 15 T20I centuries scored to date, and ten of those are reflected in this table; the only five that aren't are all from players have never played a Test (Finch, Levi, van Wyk, Berrington and Hales). Overall, this falls somewhere between WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIR (No. 6 – non-encyclopedic cross-categorisations). Aspirex (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as a content fork of List of cricketers by number of international centuries scored (all but Raina also appear on that list, and mention can be made over on that list if we think it is significant enough information.) Harrias ^talk 07:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already noted, WP;NOTSTATS and issue of content forking. Jim Carter 10:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but obviously a collection of certain facts & trivias. SWASTIK 25^talk 05:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd go further than the nom to say that this is beyond the notstats/notdir issue and goes into fancruft. Collections of centuries within formats are notable and listed in that manner. —SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP notability standards. Mr. Bellinghaus appeared in bit parts in mostly German films and television in the 1980s, and owns Monroe memorabilia. Apparently he has been involved in disputes with other collectors/people who claim to have been close to Monroe, but these debates are in no way notable enough to warrant a WP inclusion. If you google him, besides the IMdB etc. listings that come up due to his minor 80s acting career, the only other reliable sources mentioning him seem to be a LA Weekly article and some mentions in the OC Register. Furthermore, if you take a look at the talk page/deletion discussions/page history, you will find that Mr. Bellinghaus created the WP article himself and was involved in the deletion discussions. The previous deletion processes in 2008 were unsuccessful largely due to the LA Weekly article making him 'marginally notable' (by the way, some content from said article seems to have been copied in verbatim to the current article). Given that the article was in the first place created by Mr. Bellinghaus and his notability seems limited to the aforementioned article and some minor mentions elsewhere, all published in 2005–2008, I don't think he warrants an article on WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 18:16, 23 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) 05:45, 31 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, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his English article is completely ridiculous stating he is a "Marilyn Monroe activist" and "first rate skeptical investigator" or whatever imaginary thing he thinks he is. He is, however, cited as a "leading Marilyn Monroe expert" in RS[10]. Unfortunately all the articles about him from 2007/2008 etc are 404 but article was a keep in 2008 (3rd nom). His German article is 1/10th the size and I think that would be suitable... —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that's just what he likes to call himself – I've never heard a MM biographer refer to him :) I've recently re-written Monroe's article and did a good deal of research for it, but had never heard of this man before seeing his article on WP. Given that all of the articles about him are from 2005–2008, and he doesn't seem to even have his website anymore, I have a feeling he isn't even that active in "Monroe activism" anymore. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to say delete. The previous arguments for keep were actually not really based on GNG policy but outdated arguments (there are lots of Google hits for him, etc). And I couldn't find anything related to him being active as an actor anymore. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Clearly notable has hundreds of coverages in important news sources and is a principle figure in Marilyn Monroe history and biography, to delete this would be the act of a vandal desecrator and philistine. Do not dare let the article be deleted. Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Ricahrd Octave III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. What has this got to do with anything?? Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence of this? You'll need to be able to back up your claim as at the moment it seems that the opposite is true. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Here is just the start of the evidence for you: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]

References

^ https://markbellinghausfanclub.wordpress.com/
^ https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Bellinghaus
^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_Hilton_%26_Mark_Bellinghaus_2006.jpg
^ http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/eternal-flame-20120106-1pnvh.html
^ http://www.wunschliste.de/tvnews/m/zdfkultur-wiederholt-immer-wieder-sonntag-und-musik-liegt-in-der-luft
^ http://www.ocregister.com/articles/carmen-110502-monroe-says.html
^ http://www.ocregister.com/articles/monroe-110447-carmen-james.html
^ http://www.theage.com.au/news/film/monroe-sex-tape-some-like-it-not/2008/04/18/1208025455504.html
^ http://www.topnews.in/light/marilyn-monroe-dress-display-%E2%80%98fake%E2%80%99-2616
^ http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/kunstmarkt/auktionen/auktionen-in-london-hier-gibt-es-eine-moralische-verpflichtung-12614125.html

-- Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Struck duplicate !vote. None of those links satisfy requirements at WP:GNG.~~ —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck unnecessary comment. User clearly has not read all the articles. Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone know the policy on things like this User:Mmmovie/Mark_Bellinghaus? It shows up in Google searches just as highly ranked as the main article. I understand the need for draft work space but it essentially hasn't been edited since creation in 2007. -- GreenC 21:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Green Cardamom: I added it to MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mmmovie/Mark Bellinghaus. Thanks for catching that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some additional RS refs in Google News. One paper in Australia, The Age, mentioned him in passing calling him "a leading Marilyn Monroe expert" but that doesn't make it true based on such a brief mention by a single paper - if he was a "leading expert" we should see him cited by peers because there are tons of books and articles about Monroe by actual published experts. -- GreenC 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - acting career does not meet WP:NACTOR. He has never published anything about Monroe other than self-published online blog material - he is not an author or recognized by his peers in the world of Monroe historiography which is extensive. The LA Weekly article, the best sources, is a human interest story about Bellingcat because he is a quirky collector but there has not been sustained coverage - his website is down, no other human interest stories. The other mentions where he was involved in a couple controversies are minor and don't add up to a lot outside NOTNEWS. The article itself is based on a lot of non-RS. -- GreenC 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm really protesting the cancellation process, as it has become a farce, such a procedure. If you search for the pages of history Mark Bellinghaus the article you can see that it found some people who apparently tried to hide what Bellingshaus and others. It has been several times to other persons vandalizing This site in particular, who came to cause only for the purpose of damage has already been seen, and in some cases, it has Mark Bellinghaus things that are harmful to his personality supposedly. It is quite obvious to anyone who for the details about the event that you are looking fought for people to want to hurt him and discredit him for everything he achieved. Also, I find it extremely important to warn the public about fraud scams.

I think to reach everyone in the United States to be an actor / actress, even if she can not prove that all the work that they have carried out in this profession. Again, it is obvious that some people would follow Bellinghaus everywhere you go. Mr. Bellinghaus has been the victim of identity theft several times. Relationships are important to the whole picture of a person who is considered the entire talent to the public about a group of people who are out to harm the population, supported warn fraudulent exhibitions, memorabilia and signs that say, to use what they are No. The unveiling of a woman who was himself named in June DiMaggio, Marilyn Monroe story is extremely important, because this woman claims that Monroe was murdered, and that he was a friend of Monroe 11 years. When such people get away with claims, I hope you are agree, we all had a hard time to explore the life and history of a person of interest. Before I added the importance of relationships and support of Mark Bellinghaus products contain an offer, and I have cited two very interesting (in my opinion). I'm going to now be removed, and I hope that we agree us on an acceptable result. I researched before you edit something, and I have not found evidence of a major exhibition scandal or fraud. Mayb you should check with the various scams happening in the UK be familiar, but it was the museum display and fraud was a fake skull, probably thousands of years old. Again, we need to know, because the crime is still so fresh in the Marilyn Monroe exhibition of fraud, who tried the followers of such crimes, to bring Mr. Bellinghaus to silence or to belittle the work to the public. I did not want to see the article at fan page, which also turn complained. I'm a fan of investigations on facts and on the basis of the success of the first exposures Mark Bellinghaus really speaks for itself. He was a scandal, and he anything to this scandal was exposed and attached a brighter, more fireworks, when he discovered more and more crime. I could go on and on it you can see, but I really feel that it is important, and fully supported, if you can manage to make a difference to support and not attack him and clears him / her in our society. The founder of the site is very nice, but it was all over the news because of a personal, private matter. They are all for editors now doomed, simply because the founder of the personal belongings Wikipedia about eBay sold in the previous partners? Please think of this as well.

I'll take a quote from the article, and I contacted a few other editors to explore this question. The neutral Editors, the better. I also do not agree to delete the references. The more information, the better. BellinghausFan1000 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet the notability criteria. Very few trivial mentions on News, Highbeam and Scholar, and zip on Newspapers. Books had more than a few, but all trivial. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, all sources mentions are either passing mentions or not reliable, the single purpose accounts doesn't give a policy based reasoning for deletion. Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Psychee Patalinjug[edit]

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

I doubt whether Mutya ng Pilipinas is a sufficiently notable award to nmake the annual winners notable, regardless of publicity. (We ought to and do have an article on the award itself, which I am not challenging). The rule here is NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cannot locate anything specific to beauty pageants. Would this fall under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Competitors? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 31 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) 06:31, 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 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leren Mae Bautista[edit]

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

I doubt whether Mutya ng Pilipinas is a sufficiently notable award to nmake the annual winners notable, regardless of publicity. (We ought to and do have an article on the award itself, which I am not challenging). (Listed separately as there is considerable more publicity, if that is thought relevant) The rule here is NOT TABLOID. And there is no sense in which the material here is encyclopedic information. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 31 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) 06:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SEPR 841[edit]

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

After their undiscussed page move was redirected, this is a hostile WP:CFORK for some unconstructive reason from the original and broader article now at Société d'Etudes pour la Propulsion par Réaction.

This article doesn't stand up as a separate topic. It was a minor engine used only briefly - the 84-4 had the longer service history. Individual engine articles for SEPR make no sense out of the overall context of their range of engines (as the article first covered). Even the name is dubious - there's some evidence that it should be 84-1, not 841 (in which the 84-4 makes much more sense). There was, of course, no attempt at discussion in any of these moves and splits. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other individual engine articles and the article can and does cover the entire SEPR 84 family. Apart from that the nominator was the one doing the splitting and messing about as far as I can tell. The original article was patenetly about the SEPR 841 and the nominator re-named it as SEPR without changing the content so the title was completely out of sync with the content. As for only having a generic article, I agree to a certain extent, say articles on less notable SEPR solid-fuelled rockets and SEPR liquid-fuelled rockets. Whatever happens i feel the nominator should relax a bit and see what emerges, before slinging AfDs around like confetti.--Petebutt (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep - meets standards for inclusion. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 31 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) 06:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [11][12][13][14][15][16] ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material Success[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (films) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jesssemann (Creator, SPA, COI) with the following rationale "This is an internationally released film and there are only facts in this description.". I do not believe that is sufficient; the film needs to generate some non-local coverage to merit being in a encyclopedia (and this one doesn't seem to have much). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article does cite several reviews. At least two are in Toronto-based publications, so arguably they only provide local coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing notable coverage here. My own searches have turned up almost nothing. Rotten Tomatoes has zero critic reviews. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there have been edits made to the article in an attempt to further support the Wikipedia Guidelines. Further references and external links to support non-local coverage have been added also. Jesssemann (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the new references are non-local? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 31 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) 06:29, 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 no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty N' Justice[edit]

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

Easily speedy and PROD material considering there's not much and my searches simply found nothing better than this (one link) and this (some more) and this article has existed since June 2007 with not much change. Pinging the only seemingly likely interested user GoingBatty.. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment My only edit to this article was to change the {{multiple issues}} tag from the old format to the new format, and make sure the {{notability}} tag was pointing to Wikipedia:Notability (music). I defer to your ability to apply that guideline to this article. GoingBatty (talk) 17:52, 18 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! 02:52, 23 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) 05:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also unable to find much in the way of verifiable third party coverage. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging interested subject users The Cross Bearer and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - AllMusic knows about them, [17], but not enough to write something about them. They're not well-known in Christian music circles. One North American, online source reviewed one of their albums: [18]. A UK source, that reviews a lot more music, did review several albums, but not in-depth [19]. Otherwise agree with the other editors here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This band clearly passes general notability guidelines, for the reviews of their music found by Walter Gorlitz, and The Phantom Tollbooth reviews twice, once, once, once, and HM Magazine reviews for albums here and here, where this shows significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, while they are on the source list for the genre. I don't discount Cross Rhythms like Walter Gorlitz, does above, where they have five reviews, here, here, here, here, and here. The review coming from Jesus Freak Hideout, here, even further solidifies my stance on the matter, where four sources cover them.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of sources have been found for this article, and it would be a good idea to get further discussion before closing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reshma Rathore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional and not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems there's something here at first, I'm simply not seeing much to separate this from any other usual Indian actress; "Reshma Rathore India actress" found several links at News, browser and WP:INDAFD but as I said nothing much better. Pinging interested subject users MichaelQSchmidt, [email protected], Davey2010, Human3015, AKS.9955 and Yash!, past AfD commenters Tomwsulcer, Wgolf and Sanskari and new tagger Shawn in Montreal. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There were press articles about her recently in big newspapers: Dinakaran, Dina Malar, and this is 3 years after her lead role in the hit movie Ee Rojullo. Clearly notable imo. Biwom (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources here give in-depth commentary such as in the Times of India here and here and elsewhere, suggesting she easily meets the general notability guideline. One could also use this search strategy for more news sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG [20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

> Using WP:INDAFD we find lots. See results for"Reshma Rathore"

Keep in full agreement that WP:GNG and WP:ENT are met, and notable awards meet WP:ANYBIO. Sorry DGG, but WP:INDAFD offers great tools that address a systemic weakness in Google News, and with notability established, tone is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Pinging SwisterTwister. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MQS, I can possibly accept the award, but are you aware of the reliability standards of Indian newspapers in this field? DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that any source determined as reliable for having editorial staff and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would be suitable unless denied by WP:RSN. For example, the available Deccan Chronicle and Times of India seem to be eminently acceptable as RS for Indian-related topics. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per Davey and Schmidt. --Human3015^TALK 09:22, 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 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V Y Praveen Kumar[edit]

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

no evidence of a significant industry role DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better for an ordinary usual production manager. Pinging MichaelQSchmidt, Human3015, AKS.9955, Sanskari and Yash! who may have some Indian insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Just another person doing regular job. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable personality. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP.— Sanskari ^Hangout 15:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "V Y Praveen Kumar"

Keep While being a "production manager" or "executive in charge of production" does not get press, it seems that as a film producer he received a Golden Nandi Award in 2006 from the Andhra Pradesh Government.[27] That award is quite notable and a major coup for anyone in Indian cinema... a singular and quite notable honor. I would state that even in tha lack of SIGCOV (always nice but not an absolute mandate), WP:ANYBIO is met. DGG, AKS.9955, SwisterTwister, Sanskari? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:ANYBIO - has won the Nandi Award in 2006. Ya sh ! 04:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Won Nandi award. --Human3015^TALK 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO is met, having won the Nandi Award in 2006. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nayaki[edit]

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

not yet released. ; no evidence of substantial discussion before release; DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between keep and draft & userfy as there seems to be some coverage for this and WP:INDAFD found links so I'm not entirely sure. It's worth noting Nannaku Prematho which is similiar was PRODDed as well. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD searches found under Telugu name "Nayaki" and Tamil name "Nayagi".

Keep per filming having begun and topic of film's production meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3), IE:

Indian Express shares how lead actress Trisha Krishnan accepted her role after speaking with director for a very short time.
Sify speaks toward the film's pooja (blessing of production's launch) in Chennai, toward production's plans to complete the film quickly, and confirms Kovai Sarala, Sentrayan, Jayaprakash, and Brahmanandam starring in the film.
International Business Times shares that Trish took part in a promotional photo shoot for the film.
The Hindu shared a more detailed story about the film and Trish's role.
Bollywood Life compared the film to Kill Bill.
Indian Express (further proof of filming) relates how Trish's participation attracted over 1,000 fans to a shoot location, and confirms Poonam Kaur.
Sify shares stills of Trish in costume, and confirms Ganesh Venkatraman as male lead, and Jayaprakash, Manobala, Kovai Sarala and Brahmanandam in support roles.
Times of India speaks toward Trish singing a song in the film revealed as her singing debut.
Times of India reveals that her familiarity with Tamil and Telugu won a role for Sushma Raj.

There are 5 more pages of results to be found on just the Telugu name alone. After finding these, I stopped looking for more. Sorry DGG, but it meet inclusion criteria of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Pinging SwisterTwister. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:20, 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 Speedy delete per universal consensus -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp stick[edit]

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

Silly article apparently based on neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Kelly ^hi! 05:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A dictionary definition that also fails WP:GNG; has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kelly and NA1000. Alsee (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Apart from the obvious non-notability (and while this is not a grounds for deletion) I find this article rather creepy and sordid. I wonder who created it? AusLondonder (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An evangelical, anti-sex campaigner who has financial ties to the cottage industry of "anti-prostitution" groups funded by evangelicals that describe themselves as secular in public documents. -- Callinus (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per proposer. -- The Anome (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more than a slang synonym/dicdef for coat hanger and perhaps cane. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SNOW. Jbh ^Talk 14:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEO and notability. -- Callinus (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, really this just describes a wire coat hanger. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Rocks Bear Weird Vegetable[edit]

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

PROD was opposed, merger was proposed instead but opposed on the basis this music album was non-notable. Therefore the only route left is to take this to AfD. Being on the playlist of a local community radio station is insufficient to pass WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. sacredbonesrecords.com is a primary source to establish that it exists, and mere listing on an indiscriminate playlist does not establish notability. (Actually I don't even see it on the list, but that's moot.) Oppose merge. It's already listed in Ben Wallers, and trying to merge more info would be undue and would clash with the other listings in there. Alsee (talk) 16:05, 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 22:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kulliyyat-e-Hasrat[edit]

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

Unremarkable non-English book (a poetry collection), no mention of it on Google (except transclusions from Wikipedia). Author might have conflict of interest (poetry was likely written by a family member). kashmiri ^TALK 21:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a speedy delete candidate. No sources at all, no claim of notability at all, and I found squat when I tried the search links. Alsee (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alsee. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:27, 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 22:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY SageGreenRider (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage of the phrase and its origin, even with a British linguistics professor analyzing it. [28], [29], [30], [31] . —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable phrase, as demonstrated by the references in the article. St Anselm (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it were as notable as you guys said it would have an article that was more than two sentences and have far more reputable sources than 2. I'll change my mind if you can at least lengthen it to 2 paragraphs, but less than that just seems silly. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary material, As someone who uses the phrase more often than not even I don't think it needs article, Would be better off at Wiki Dictionary or whatever it's called. –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as this is nothing more than a definition + etymology, and will never be more than that, it belongs in the Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. The two 'keep' votes refer to the reputability of the references, but don't address the fact that those references are still offering nothing more than an etymology, and a dictionary is the right place for etymology. Aspirex (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF. Unlikely to expand beyond a dictionary definition. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge WP:DICDEF doesn't tell us to delete stuff; it tells us to group topics by their meaning not their spelling. The similar topics of sorry, apology, mea culpa, excuse me and pardon are all blue links and so should this be too. Getting it all together in a sensible way is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:PRESERVE. As for notability, here's an entire book on the subject. Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book "My Bad" isn't about the phrase itself. It is a collection of the best of this year's most exquisitely squirm-inducing pleas for forgiveness . The Excuse me blue link goes to a film of that title. Sorry is a disambig page which list e.g. the game titled Sorry! Same thing for "apology". "Pardon" is about the encyclopedia-worthy legal concept "Pardon is the postponement of punishment..." . "Mea culpa" is a dictionary definition this has a merge tag on it. WP:DICDEF does indeed call for deletion in cases where it is appropriate to do so. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF. Andrew D.'s keep !vote is based on errors, per SageGreenRider's comment. Alsee (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OYO Rooms[edit]

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

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Not notable! Vinay089 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Totally meets WP:GNG. If it is written like an advertisement, WP:SOFIXIT. sst✈^discuss 02:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 02:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 02:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there isn't much convincing of better improvement simply because of some coverage here and there. Pinging past users Oshwah and Gilliam and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep. I definitely agree that there are many issues with the article. However, this fact doesn't warrant its deletion using the AFD process - it just needs to be improved. Many secondary reliable sources exist that discuss this company in-depth ([32], [33], [34], [35] to list a few). Passes WP:GNG and appears also to pass WP:COMPANY ~~by a mile~~. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I updated my vote and redacted some parts of my voting statement. Sorry for taking so long to follow-up, I've been very busy lately. I've looked into this a bit more per DGG's arguments for deleting the article - I'm not completely finished yet, but so far, I'm standing behind my vote. DGG argues a very valid point, in that notability due to articles talking about funding (I'm also going to add sources that cover another company's decision to use their product to this thought as well) - do not assert notability by themselves. I agree with his statement. However, this source, as well as this one, this one, and even this one provide coverage that appears to align with the independence, reliability, and coverage topic (including DGG's arguments) required to establish notability for WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Straightforward promotionalism. Almost enough for G11, regardless of any possible notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG - I made some quick improvements to the article. Hopefully this will help, but please let me know if you still disagree. I'll see if I can't try and further address the issues that still remain in the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yws, the article is improved--most of the promotional material, has been removed. The problem now is notability. Of the references, most refer only to the funding. I think it's now becoming accepted that references referring primarily to the initial funding before a first public offering are mere notices, and do not show notability . Obviously, every company will have funding of some sort, and that fact that a company does, is not evidence of any encyclopedic significance. If the company is indeed the largest budget hotel chain, this might well be notability ,but the evidence to prove it comes from unreliable sources: Startup Beat is a publisher of press releases, hindu businessline, likewise. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Let me re-evaluate the sources I found and get back to you. I understand your argument that "every company gets funding" in that it's not a basis for notability since, well, it's what all companies receive. If the sources I found don't demonstrate significant coverage from multiple sources in different areas (not just one newspaper, site, etc.) then I will concede my vote. That's what I believe that it's down to (in my mind) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article is completely wrong. It is not a hotel chain. It is a booking website which guarantees rooms in certain hotels in different cities. The hotels operate independently and allow Oyo Rooms to claim on their site that the particular room being sold is an OYO room. This is just an "exclusive rate" tie up that hotels offer Expedia, Travelocity etc, but unlike in those cases, the booking site is branding it as their room. —SpacemanSpiff 15:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

exactly DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Oshwah. The links posted by them are sufficient to show that multiple secondary reliable sources have covered the article topic in sufficient detail to warrant notability because of WP:GNG. The article also has news reports from multiple Indian newspapers that are not just talking about the initial offering, so does not count as WP:ONEEVENT. Other points talked about the exact nature of the hotel chain/booking website are tangents to the question of notability. Soni (talk) 00:32, 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 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cricket All-Stars cricketers[edit]

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

This is not a first class or List A level series and even for those we don't document statistics in this manner. This is clearl WP:NOT what an encyclopaedia should be. The All-stars series is to promote cricket in the US and has drawn in players who have all retired from the game, it's meant to be fun, that's it. This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket All-Stars Series 2015‎ which includes the two team articles, so this one has apparently been created to circumvent that discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 04:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 04:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Just a collection of statistics for an exhibition series. Aspirex (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't quite understand the statistical argument. Aren't these matches on the same level as the Indian Premier League? St Anselm (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly! This is a group of retired players playing a few exhibition matches in the USA for a pay-check. Harrias ^talk 06:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant of course statistically. St Anselm (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have something which says it in prose; but CricketArchive lists the the game format as "miscellaneous" [36] rather than Twenty20 (example here), and the series is absent from this list of all ESPNCricinfo-recognised Twenty20 series [37] – so I'm confident that statistically it is not recognised on the same level as the IPL. Aspirex (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable collection of statistics for a meaningless set of exhibition matches. Harrias ^talk 06:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Cricket All-Stars- all this info is on that page anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exhibition matches only. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord, I Lift Your Name on High[edit]

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

Song appears to have had only limited coverage. Links used as references are dead or do not point to the subject of the article. Article requires multiple citations to independent reliable sources of broader interest in order to be retained. I did not find any. KDS4444^Talk 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not sure why you couldn't find anything. Article claims about popularity are founded. [38], [39], [40] —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song appears in numerous lists of most popular Christian songs, and has independent coverage, so passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live (Paul Baloche album)[edit]

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

All of the references used to support a notability claim for this album come from sources with limited circulation/ audience. I was not able to detect any interest in this album by the wider press (if not deleted, then it should certainly be merged into the artist's web page). KDS4444^Talk 04:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The comment above is a very biased perception towards music in general and more particularly Christian music, where it is significantly covered in multiple reliable sources that are sources of repute and independent of the subject, who cover the genre.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG and the sources meet WP:RS. The circulation of the publications is not an issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 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 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Bylos[edit]

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

Subject is quoted a few times in the references given, but is not discussed himself and is not the subject of the article. A Google search turns up only trivial information on him— I could find no substantive discussion of him in secondary reliable sources. Propose to delete. KDS4444^Talk 03:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Not a notable individual. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ruby Day[edit]

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

minor awards only ; none of the refs are RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging users who are familiar with this subject, Gene93k, Spartaz, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Davey2010 and also past users of this article Dismas, Asarelah, Missvain and Varnent. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @SwisterTwister:, you vote for delete and you pinging (four) users who in 99% similar cases vote for delete (including user who always [100%] vote for delete and second user who create of 97% pages of Articles for deletion for pornstars etc) - it has signs of meatpuppetry. Also, you pinging users who have contribution to the article? Why there are Varnent and Missvain with 3-4 minor changes (mainly the addition of templates of BLP sources etc) and you not pinging user @Photofrog: who made a lot of changes to the article? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I'm not entirely familiar nor interested with the pornography industry but those users are regardless of what they say so they are welcome to comment. I was not going to ping Photofrog because they are not obviously active so there's no urgent point of notifying them. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

forgive me, but there are more users active in the topic of pornography (including inclusionists and participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography) but... you ping only group of most active delectionist of pornography, including "king" of votes for delete in pornography in Wikipedia [100% votes for delete] and second user who is "king" of create pages for delection pornography article (in the last months, author of 97-98% of all pages of articles for deletion about pornography in English Wikipedia), so, this very much stings the eyes.
ok, Photofrog in recent times are not active but why are ping users who some months ago made 3-4 minor changes (mainly the addition of templates of BLP sources etc)? if you want more voters, please add info to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Man - With the greatest of respect ... Please shut up!, ST pings everyone in AFDs and this is no different, As he explained on his TP he simply pings everyone so stop causing unnecessary dramah and edit go edit elsewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davi, you wrong. If user calling on the help of users (pinging), which he knows that these users can help (also votes like he) - this is meatpuppetry. I have the right to explain the matter because it is about a serious violation.
SwisterTwister, I assume good will (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) but in the future, please be careful with such things. For me, case closed. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he's not wanting our help ... I've more than once !voted the opposite to him and that's with him pinging me!, As I said he only pings those who frequently edit those AFDs ... It's not meatpuppetry in the slightest and he's not violated anything in the slightest so give it a rest will you. –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only informing the users who usually vote just like he in this case and not informing opponents and also not informing neutral users in case (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography) is very suspicious. User who encourages to vote (pinging) users about which he knows or guess how they will vote is typical meatpuppetry. One year ago, in similar vote (but not relate to pornography) I have witnessed when administrators are confirmed it and user was blocked for 48 hours. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we've had this bullshit discussion already a few years ago and the reasons for deletion didn't get better. Everybody agrees that she neither won an Oscar nor a Noble Prize, but talking her successes down is nothing but elitism. --MadScientist2410 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MadScientist2410 When was this "discussion"? as this article was seemingly never AfD nominated and it was only speedied as A7 in 2010. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per SwisterTwister - Fails PORNBIO, NACTOR and GNG. (Thanks ST for the ping). –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's sound assessment. Fails both the applicable SNGs and the GNG. Sourcing falls far below BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with a minor award win and lots of nominations. Fails GNG as the nominator states. Lacks coverage by independent, reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't usually vote in these pornbio nominations, but after reading the accusation of canvassing, I did a few searches to see if I could turn up anything. I really don't see much at all except what's already in the article, and it's mostly primary sources or nominations. An argument could be made that her work in feminist fetish porn satisfies WP:PORNBIO criterion #2, but there's very little to actually substantiate that besides a few interviews on blogs and the nominations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this discussion was had several years ago and after adjustments were made to the article it was brought to specification and met guidelines. No one's claiming she has achieved world achievements such as a World Peace Award or an Emmy Award but her success is validated by the industry in which she has participated in and continues to be recognized for her achievements within it, all of which are verifiable. A personal opinion claiming they are less than the achievements they are is elitism. Achieves PORNBIO with an award win of a world recognized and international equivalent to the United State's AVN Award as well as nominated multiple times by the top two US awards associations which are the adult equivalent to the Oscars. She has also been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.--photofrog (talk) 1:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep I second that this is a bullshit discussion in the first place and seems to be coming from individuals that have noting better to do then troll this page. The Feminist Pron Awards is a international recognized Award that is a big deal in the adult industry. Also this discussion to delete this page and remove her continuing success is elitism. This page and all the references are legit.--pennyrider15 (talk) 2:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I note from their web page they gave 16 awards that year. I'm not sure of the notability of their awards, as it's run by an adult store in Canada. Any evidence they;re regarded as equivalent to the AVN? DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In evaluating that claim, it's worth taking into account that 1) pennyrider15 has made no other edits and 2) in connection with the upload of the photo in the article, photofrog self-identified as the person named in the article as the subject's husband, and only edits pages related to this subject. More than a little COI here, it appears. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO. I was not pinged in this case but SwisterTwister pings me ALL the time on his/her AfD noms and I recommend keep to probably 2/3 of them! This is no meatpuppetry here, but a great wikieditor trying to alert people he/she thinks could possibly have some input and additional resources to make sure the AfD outcome is as correct as possible. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject here basically appears to be an Internet celebrity and does not appear to have any entries at the Internet Adult Film Database or the Adult Film Database, which probably means that they have only "performed" in online pornography at best so far. I've also yet to see any evidence offered that the Feminist Porn Awards qualify as "a well-known and significant industry award". The subject here may have been involved in the feminist pornography movement, but those issues haven't been fleshed out in the article at this late date.

Pinging other users (that haven't yet been mentioned already) in AfDs should be highly discouraged in almost all cases. Guy1890 (talk) 07:10, 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 as the current article is more acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solé Bicycle Co.[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable and improvable as the best my searches found was this and this. Pinging Dialectric, Mean as custard and WQUlrich. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no credible suggestion of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redo - It looks like a piece of self-promotion for something that was going to be temporary, but they are still in business and probably deserve some mention...phrased more neutrally of course. WQUlrich (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Quest for cheaper bikes turns into niche business". Reuters.
^ "College students find success in self-made businesses". USA Today.
^ "America's Coolest College Start-Ups of 2011". Inc.com.
^ "Solé Bicycles: turning a passion into a million-dollar business". Yahoo Small Business.
^ "Meet the Bicycle That's Mastered Casual Style". GQ magazine.
^ "Behind the Scenes with Patti Payne". Puget Sound Business Journal. 2 September 2011.
^ "Bike sales are going crazy, and these startups are cashing in". Business Insider.

Keep - as per sources found by Northamerica1000 - passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The page has been moved/renamed to Solé Bicycles, which is the actual company name. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @SwisterTwister and Mean as custard: Do you feel that sources presented herein establish notability for this company? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above, definitely notable. Cavarrone 12:24, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holmlea Primary School[edit]

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

Primary schools are almost always not notable. Nothing elevates this former school. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing? That statement is demonstrably false. Didn't you read the source? It's a grade B listed building with Historic Scotland of architectural interest. They didn't put it on the heritage at risk register just because it is old. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GEOFEAT as a listed building. There is also coverage in this reliable source. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Keep - I misunderstood the use of the term, sorry) As per above, it is a listed building, although the article should be for the building, not the former school that has now left. RailwayScientist (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case all that is needed is a page move to clarify the subject as the content of the article is mostly about the building. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even a page move isn't needed as the correct name of the building is Holmlea Primary School as that is the name used by the sources even if the building is no longer used as a school, per Common Name. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In any event, "wrong name" is not a valid argument for deletion. Edwardx (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting it should be moved (as you said, the sources all refer to it as Holmlea Primary School), just that it would be a better solution to their complaint than deleting it. I probably could have worded it better. Sarah-Jane (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to clarify, but your wording was fine. And I agree that Holmlea Primary School is the best name, per Wikipedia:Article titles. Edwardx (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grade B listed building, the second highest category - meets WP:GEOFEAT. It being a former primary school is irrelevant. Edwardx (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as above, clearly meets criteria for notability, with sufficient reliable sources employed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question @RailwayScientist: Nom has withdrawn, if you no longer recommend deletion, this discussion can be closed early. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion G12 (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodog Beck[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:PROF. Beck seems to have written a lot of stuff on bee venom therapy, but the (serious) world has ignored it. Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio - text taken from 1997 book. Actually notable, but article should be TNT to expunge copyvio history —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:37, 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 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chidi Uche[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHSPHSATH, high school lacrosse player without any notability. CSD'ed twice previously. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: first reference is a mention on his school's athletic website, second one doesn't have him. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already deleted twice, no significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second one refers to the team that he was on at his school. Read the article first... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxfanatic101 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was part of the football team, but he is not the football team, many players make up a team. Yes, it talks about the football team but not him specifically, so it's about something that affects him, not about him or even mentions him. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalist Stalinism[edit]

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

Hoax, no such school existed. Soman (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, prove it. Marcosoldfox (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be the person's own ideas with a few un-relaible sources to webpages that don't specifically document the topic. RailwayScientist (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. And a trout slap to article creator, in fact, shouldn't such a disruptive editor be blocked? or otherwise supervised, sanctioned?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please delete the article. I confirm that the article is a hoax, I had created it with the intention of examining how much time it would take for Wikipedia editors to realize it, I'm glad with the results. Marcosoldfox (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Do not create hoaxes. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion per G3 and G7. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 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 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajee Narinesingh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable individual; recreation of previously deleted article —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Was previously deleted as a afd. Wgolf (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evaluating the article as it currently exists, there are citations to multiple sources which establish notability. The AfD discussion for the previous article of the same name brought up WP:BLP1E, which itself states that "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals." An actress doesn't seem like a "low-profile individual" as intended by that guideline. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 10:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better and the sources are from the usual websites covering these controversial subjects. Pinging David Fuchs and L235. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decently sourced article about an actress. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is essentially identical to the one last created by the same person. Using "actress" to cover this individual, when they appear to only have two IMDB credits to their name not attached to the 1E event (with one item being unreleased, the other apparently never receiving any mass release except via IMDB itself), seems like a stretch. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, SwisterTwister, David Fuchs and Wgolf. The press all comes from a single incident, clear case of WP:BLP1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Fuchs Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For once, a WP:BLP1E argument that I agree with. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The consensus above is to delete based on WP:BLP1E, though on looking at sources, it appears to me that the subject contains to retain some interest in the media after the event. The subject seeks out the media, and is interviewed on aspects of the incident, and on other aspects of her life. There are a number of sources covering several years, which talk about her in depth. Daily Mail 201 and Daily Mail 2015. There is a book on her (apparently written by her) Beyond Face Value, and there may be others, but I'm having difficulties tracking down the pages on which she is mentioned - but a Google books search with her name turns up several hits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Mail articles are tabloids and do not count as independent reporting - they are just discussing her appearance on Botched and a local TV station. A book she wrote herself wouldn't give her notability, she would have to be successful enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this has been withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Karlberg[edit]

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

I don't see anything here that satisfies WP:NMUSIC. A Google search only finds the usual Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube accounts, listings sites, mention of her existence, etc, but I can't find any editorial coverage at all. 823510731 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMUSIC#C2 - her cover of Crazy in Love charted at #55 on the UK Singles Chart.--Laun chba ller 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, do you have a source for it? 823510731 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. I will say that this was a very poorly timed AfD, given I'm here from having heard Karlberg's version from an advert earlier in the year, and then from a performance on The X Factor that sounded almost exactly like it. I should imagine many others are as well.--Laun chba ller 09:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've struck my nomination above. I don't know anything about the timing as I'd never heard of her until I saw the article, have never heard the song, and don't watch X Factor. 823510731 (talk)

Keep: My mistake, I'd missed the charted single. 823510731 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Discussions about the applicability of WP:NFOOTBALL for female players should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Humble[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hasn't played in a fully professional football league. Was previously deleted for the same reasons, the notability hasn't changed. Hack (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Humble played in top-division women's league in Australia. WP:NFOOTBALL is pretty much irrelevant to women's football/soccer leagues. Article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Previous AFD with one participant and short duration is questionable. Hmlarson (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage? Other than coverage from the FFA (who as a party to her contract are not independent), there is nothing other than routine coverage. Hack (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hmlarson. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted by Hmlarson, WP:NFOOTY is almost useless when determining notability for women's football players due to the lack of women's fully-professional leagues. Playing in the W-League is a notable accomplishment. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage evidence - also fails WP:NFOOTBALL, of course. Giant Snowman 11:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hmlarson. It is quite ridiculous that you expect the same standard of coverage for men's and women's football when they do not receive the same coverage. Also, Australia's top-league is "non-professional" only in the wages the players receive (minimal), making the women actually sacrifice a lot to play. Furthermore, with the new CBA for all of football in Australia, I could certainly see the league become fully professional, by your standards, soon enough. --SuperJew (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to make sure no one calls me out in this PC day and age, I want to make sure that it is understood I mean no personal attacks by the use of the words "you" and "your", but rather am referring to the collective of Wikipedia guidelines. --SuperJew (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, because as SuperJew says, even the top womens' football leagues get nowhere near as much coverage (or finances) as the mens, therefore playing in the top league is not a fast-track to meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. I would like womens' football to get more interest, but it doesn't at the moment. As the nominator says, there's scant evidence of any news coverage about Humble. Sionk (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmlarson and Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on present WP:NSPORT and WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines, no individual W-league player is notable as they do not play in a professional league unless they have been "the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." - WP:SPORTCRIT(The same could have been said about Australian rugby league players of the 1970s who worked as garbos and brickie labourers during the week and played in the Sydney league - see WP:RLN). Most of the specific team sport criteria are similar ie. professional/country representative, but there are exceptions eg. ice hockey (WP:NHOCKEY) - "2.Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;" Could the same be applied to football? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that women's football receives less coverage than men's is a reason to consider any coverage to be weightier than corresponding men's coverage - not to consider women apriori less notable as suggested by some here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. This source provided in the article is essentially the only coverage of the player outside of brief mentions in match reporting. there has essentially been no focus on this player whatsoever and this is not surprising as in the last six years, she has played only a handful of games. Not one keep comment above makes any attempt to illustrate GNG, they merely state it exists or make special pleading that since the women's game receives less coverage there should be a lower threshold of notability without pointing to any guideline to support their argument. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of evidence that WP:FPL and therefore WP:NFOOTBALL is not fit for purpose. I think GNG is met. The argument above that there is essentially no coverage, apart from the coverage, does not seem particularly compelling. Carlos Kickabaw (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Obviously fails NFOOTY because the league is not fully professional. The convincing argument to keep was by Coolabahapple who pointed out that we have articles on eighty years of rugby league players who were in the same situation. I imagine I'll get an accusation of WP:OSE, but it appears a valid precedent to me.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:49, 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 speedy deletion (A1) (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rojalci[edit]

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

In foreign language. 114BryanKurt ^{Let's talk!} 09:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's in a foreign-language does not necessarily mean that it should be deleted solely for that reason. However, based on a machine translation of the page, it seems that the subject of the article is unclear, therefore speedy delete this article per A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion; I have tagged the article per the said criteria. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:24, 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 speedy delete. Neither " in foreign language" nor "does not have sections" are valid deletion reasons. However, the page qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KRAS (Heavy Metal Punk Machine)[edit]

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

In foreign language and does not have sections 114BryanKurt ^{Let's talk!} 08:35, 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.

[1] "Top Mobile App Development Company in India, USA - Konstantinfo". Konstant Infosolutions.

[2] STUDENT SLANG AT IIT MADRAS: A LINGUISTIC FIELD STUDY

[3] ttps://markbellinghausfanclub.wordpress.com/

[4] ttps://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Bellinghaus

[5] ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_Hilton_%26_Mark_Bellinghaus_2006.jpg

[6] ttp://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/eternal-flame-20120106-1pnvh.html

[7] ttp://www.wunschliste.de/tvnews/m/zdfkultur-wiederholt-immer-wieder-sonntag-und-musik-liegt-in-der-luft

[8] ttp://www.ocregister.com/articles/carmen-110502-monroe-says.html

[9] ttp://www.ocregister.com/articles/monroe-110447-carmen-james.html

[10] ttp://www.theage.com.au/news/film/monroe-sex-tape-some-like-it-not/2008/04/18/1208025455504.html

[11] ttp://www.topnews.in/light/marilyn-monroe-dress-display-%E2%80%98fake%E2%80%99-2616

[12] ttp://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/kunstmarkt/auktionen/auktionen-in-london-hier-gibt-es-eine-moralische-verpflichtung-12614125.html

[13] "Quest for cheaper bikes turns into niche business". Reuters.

[14] "College students find success in self-made businesses". USA Today.

[15] "America's Coolest College Start-Ups of 2011". Inc.com.

[16] "Solé Bicycles: turning a passion into a million-dollar business". Yahoo Small Business.

[17] "Meet the Bicycle That's Mastered Casual Style". GQ magazine.

[18] "Behind the Scenes with Patti Payne". Puget Sound Business Journal. 2 September 2011.

[19] "Bike sales are going crazy, and these startups are cashing in". Business Insider.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]