Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 November	9 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. Biblioworm 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theraflux Medical[edit]

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

As best, this is a clear case of too soon - a medical devices company that doesn't yet actually sell any medical devices. It also looks like the company trying to promote itself. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability. All hits seem to be directory or profile listings. I might have even speedy deleted it as it's claim of significance is tenuous at best. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 02:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 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 18:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Hua[edit]

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

No secondary source reference for a living person, seems like a poorly-written promotional piece. Probably fails WP:NACADEMICS since I don't see how she has made a significant contribution to her field of research, nor do I see any notable university position or membership aside from unsourced claims of "first Chinese-born woman linguist to be made a full professor in a British university." or "first doctoral student of the late Professor Qian Yuan （钱瑗）, the daughter of the well known Chinese scholars and writers Qian Zhongshu （钱锺书）and Yang Jiang （杨绛）" (notice Qian Yuan doesn't have a page). Plus, virtually an orphan (only 2 links, one of which is for another person of the same name and the second is just "List of Birkbeck, University of London people". and the only category is "Living people". Timmyshin (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly cited linguist, visiting professor at universities in China, Australia, Kazakhstan; easily meets WP:ACADEMIC; Z+Hua+linguistics h-index of 34 45 —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please define "easily". WP:ACADEMICS: "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1... Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose." "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." Timmyshin (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what criteria you're looking at - WP:NACADEMICS is the specific guideline for notability of academics. She meets the very first criteria (which is explained down the page). She has 7k-10k citations. If there is a guideline somewhere that says linguists are so over-cited that they must meet other criteria, please tell us where we can find that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her Google scholar profile needs better editing as many of the papers listed there appear to be by other people with similar names. In particular the h-index of 45 listed there appears to be completely bogus. But it shows enough highly cited publications that are actually in linguistics (citation counts 217, 187, 162, 73, ...) for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement but seems to be notable to me. AusLondonder (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Distinction Awards[edit]

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

The article, as written, seems to be about the local version of this award in Vancouver. Neelix seems to have written it as part of his Tara Teng universe of articles because she was apparently nominated for one. But it also mentions a Washington, DC version, not sure if this is national. Should any of this be merged into YWCA? I think it should just be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 22:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree this should be merged with YWCA. —cg6237 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to YWCA. Kelly has nominated some real junk tonight. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These awards have been presented for decades and a Gnews search reveals that are independently notable of the organization that grants them. See for example this McGill Reporter story, or this one from the other side of the country. I also wonder if those in favour of merging to YWCA have actually taken a look at the proposed merge target. We don't have an article on YWCA Canada, so this would have the effect of burying content on a notable award for Canadian women in the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Women of Distiction Awards are YWCA system wide it seems, but a random list of recipients in various places is pretty useless. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. BMK (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found an amazing 38 Redirects to this article from Women of Distinction Award to The Young Womens Christian Association Women of Distinction Awards. [1] all created together by Neelix Perhaps delete them with the article. Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this article gets deleted, the redirects may be deleted under WP:G8. sst✈^discuss 09:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable award. When completed article will be too large to merge to YWCA and may even need to be split. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to YWCA: collection of locally-based awards, main references are to, as Legacypac notes, random recipients in various places. Not the worst of this lot but a one-sentence reference in the YWCA article would cover it just as well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solution Women of Distinction TM is a program is a long time local branch YWCA Canada [[2]] annual award and fundraiser that was adopted in the USA (national level) in 2012 [3] I've improved the YWCA article [4] The Nom'd page should be DELETED as not the right name. All the REDIRECTS should be DELETED as corruptions of a trademarked name except Women of Distinction which I have retargeted to YWCA. I used nothing from the target, so it is not a merger. There is no value in trying to build a list of recipients of a bunch of local awards - our guidelines specifically say something about winning a local award is not notable. If one of the winners happens to be otherwise notable, then by all means add the WOD award to her BLP. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand to be more about the awards program and maybe move the list elsewhere. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, this is a reasonable sub article for the YWCA and the award has easily enough merits on WP:SIGCOV alone. As for the merge, I haven't seen any real policy based arguments why it should be merged. Mkdw ^talk 19:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No please read my comments. It's a thing in Canadian YCWA's, and once three years back in the USA. There was not even a country section in YWCA for Canada until I added it yesterday and no article about YWCA Canada, so why propose a daughter article. Please look at what I did in YWCA and reevaluate. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Anti-Human Trafficking Committee[edit]

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

Local charitable organization that fails notability requirements of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge – not supported in depth by any reliable sources, except for local news sources and sources related to the subject. All of the reliable sources mention the subject in passing. epic genius (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe this could be merged to Human trafficking in Canada? I'm not entirely sure what would be merged there, though. There isn't a whole lot of meat here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're a local organisation who staged one rally, ran two local events, and staged a local amateur version of the author's favourite play. This could have been speedied: every short-lived local activist group ever would pass notability criteria if it were this broad. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now all in all as there's not much for a better article aside from the current somewhat amount of sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess there isn't anything to merge, and it doesn't look like there's any coverage outside of community newsletters. I agree that local organizations this marginal don't satisfy WP:ORG. Otherwise, if I became friends with a local reporter, our book club might become notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human trafficking in Canada. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Childhope Asia Philippines[edit]

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

Non-notable charitable organization, fails WP:NORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is a worthy cause, as my domestic partner tells me, it is not notable. The only reliable source appears to be a dead link. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know if you can call these reliable sources, 1 2 3 4 5.--RioHondo (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the links above show something but without any more obvious signs, there's nothing to suggest a better article and this current version would need it. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 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 deleted as an A7 by Y (talk · contribs). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Swezzle[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This artist has released 8 albums, and that is hundreds of songs. He is notable and I contest this. --Many-Kaarten (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He also presents hundreds of results on Google. --Many-Kaarten (talk) 21:48, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servants Anonymous Society[edit]

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

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the nominator's looking at: a Gnews search for the term definitely meets WP:ORG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you have confused Ghits with actual sources, or why you think "because I said so" constitutes actual evidence. --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should note that this is part of 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) 07:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that ... that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

So when you're finished poisoning the well, perhaps you could actually address the actual issues? --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should strike your bad-faith comments, User:Shawn in Montreal. So far, several articles created by Neelix have been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure; I forgot about this one. I'd already apologized to Kelly at the ANI. I still think he was a too broad with these Neelix Afds but I'm sure a good many of them will pass. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, well referenced; Tara Teng doesn't appear to be inappropriately shoehorned in, which I understand to be one of the possible concerns.-- Elmidae 08:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the actual concern -- Shawn in Montreal's bad-faith narrative notwithstanding -- has nothing to do with Tara Teng? --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, move your eyes on over to the infobox and photo. Who's that in the image? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any sources outside of Alberta that would support notability for a local org. Appears part of the walled garden of Tara worship. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't need to be "outside of Alberta" — Alberta is a huge Canadian province. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 20:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not supported by any reliable sources, except for local news sources and sources related to the subject. Seems to be a puffery article for a topic related to Tara Teng. epic genius (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are 1.1 million people in Calgary, AB — we're not talking about coverage in the Cricketsville Tiddler... Carrite (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a great title for a newspaper, Carrite! :) AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's just strip aside the question of who wrote this piece and who is a leading member of this organization and take a neutral, honest look at whether it passes GNG as a organization covered substantially by multiple pieces of independently-published coverage in sources of presumed reliability, shall we? (1) THIS counts as one towards GNG, "Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary seeks help to salvage flooded Christmas of vulnerable women, kids," in the Calgary Sun, Dec. 2014. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention in THIS from the site of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary. Not substantial enough to count to GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, passing mention only in THIS from the Cloverdale Reporter. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere passing mention once more in THIS piece from The Star on hearings on anti-prostitution legislation. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that THIS listing on a website of Ottawa University counts as (2) towards GNG, being independently published, substantial, and of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A listing in the Calgary Street Survival Guide for 2010 HERE is borderline as (3). That's enough to get me over the top for the "multiple" requirement. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the above, it appears that this organization (barely) meets GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia. In a close call, I will always favor inclusionism over deletionism, particularly when a piece is part of a set of more or less retaliatory nominations. Honest people may differ about whether GNG is fulfilled here. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is a fairly close call, despite the aggressive bad-faith personal attack by another editor on the nom above. The organisation has received some media attention, but not, in many cases, significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unfortunately I'm just not seeing WP:ORG here. Even in local papers it mostly seems to be brief mentions, and most of the other sources are primary or otherwise not independent of the source (partners and press releases, for example). The only real sources I've seen so far are Calgary Sun, and another source I haven't seen linked, a local magazine cited below but behind a paywall, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Home for mary magdalene: A christian ministry to juvenile prostitutes expands (servants anonymous society of calgary works with prostitutes under 18 years of age)". Western Report. 9 (32). 1 August 1994.

Keep only if better coverage can be found but if not delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief mentions and four events that got one write-up in the local paper doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:40, 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 speedy delete under wp:a7 -- Y not? 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Swezzle[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and contest this. DJ Swezzle has released many albums and hundreds of songs. --Many-Kaarten (talk) 10:36, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot Legal Society[edit]

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

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This passes WP:ORG. Looks like we have an article about one of their projects, but it should probably be merged/redirected into this article, judging by the sources available for each. Pivot looks to take a number of regionally and sometimes nationally significant cases, issues statements that get picked up by the press, and seems to be consulted pretty often about various human rights legal issues. As for sources: Chapter-length legal case study about the organization, The Nation, Global News, Vancouver Courier, Global News, The Province, CBC, The Georgia Straight, Olympic Industry Resistance (book), Selling Sex (book), Huffington Post, Huffington Post, A Thousand Dreams: Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and the Fight for Its Future (book), Canada, Abusing the User (Human Rights Watch report), The Tyee. Also found dozens of links to lesser coverage of their cases, statements on legal issues, quick quotes (a little more than a "brief mention", but not worth including here, I don't think). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While complaining about Neelix creating a bunch of clean-up work for others in the community, your rapid fire deletion nominations (dozens made within a few minutes of each other that clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE) likewise puts a burden on others (it takes time to look for sources). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites. While not all legal societies are notable, this one appears to be so, based on good sources to prove notability. Contra Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_Aid_Society_of_Orange_County. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanly passes WP:SIGCOV. Another AFD whereby it may have been better for the nominator to do their due diligence with a WP:BEFORE search. Mkdw ^talk 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename to Cheryl Perera. - I'll let someone who's knowledgeable with the subject move and restructure everything as I have a feeling I'd screw it up!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OneChild[edit]

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

Local organization that fails the notability guidelines of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. Refs stink. BMK (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though it might be better to reframe/move the article to be about Cheryl Perera, whose name seems to be synonymous with the organization and who seems like the more interesting subject (i.e. OneChild is most notable for her work). Financial Times, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Flame Magazine, South Asian Generation Next, SamaritanMag, Canada.com, University of Toronto Magazine, Daily News (Sri Lanka)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Rhododendrites found some good sources, but they're almost entirely about the founder. She's definitely notable, no question about it. The organization... maybe. But some of those sources don't even mention it, or they only mention it in passing while they discuss her history of activism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. source found.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 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) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Perrier[edit]

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

Activist of strictly local notability. Fails guidelines in WP:BIO. Kelly ^hi! 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lots of info here that the subject may not want on the internet. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seriously skeptical WP:BEFORE is actually being followed now. And Lots of info here that the subject may not want on the internet is ridiculous. She's an activist and public speaker. She has a Gofundme campaign. She obviously wants this on the Internet. Passes WP:BIO. Vice, CBC, International Business Times, The Star, National Post, National Post, Feminist Current (news clip), CityNews, Toronto Observer, Native News Network (via SOTT), tbnews, Tulalipnews, Winnipeg Free Press, aptn, Hamilton Spectator, Canada.com, Kincardine Independent... Some of these are better than others, to be sure, but all reliable sources, not all local, and she's a big part of if not the subject of all of them. Every page of ghits returns more and more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhodo. Everyking (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless we rewrite the notability criteria. Collect (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhodo. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of sources highlighted here by Rhododendrites, plus even more available on Google News. Stories range from a few days ago to several years ago, showing a substantial and sustained amount of coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 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. Biblioworm 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina MacLeod[edit]

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

Local activist, not notable per WP:BIO. The only claims to notability seem to be speaking at a couple of events. Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. no notability and would she even want this article about her up? Legacypac (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Un-notable BLP: no claim to notability here - all that it is says is that she's spoken about her experiences (that she may well not want a Wikipedia article about) in a few local events. This woman has less claim to notability than me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:40, 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 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Health Shop[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Only claims of corporate notability are number of twitter followers (and claiming that value as evidence of "fastest growing" as a company itself is hopeless nonsense). DMacks (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to fastest growing as DMacks states, although company can still be notable in that many thousands of people follow it. Wikipedia states "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject" a measure of popularity can be Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcoop814 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no indication of notability. (7000 twitter followers can easily be purchased). . . .Mean as custard (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (if not speedy) delete. Retail company without significant, substantial coverage in secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that was why I put {{notability}} there in the first place. It would have been stronger if this business doesn't appear to be gaining any prominence anywhere (hence the reason I did not request deletion initially). <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when I saw the "possible vandalism" tag beside the entry for page's creation in the page history, I knew this might be a problem, for until now I have never seen a new page creation tagged as such.

Delete Notability needs to come from WP:RS which are lacking and don't seem to exist. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 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 keep. Also unprotecting. I'm going to give Another Believer a chance to continue working on the page. I don't consider this AfD entirely valid, since the article was fully protected for most of it, stopping any reliable sources being added to establish notability. There's no urgent need for the article to be merged or deleted, as evidenced by the low levels of participation here, so we can afford to wait a couple weeks and see how the article develops. If we're still not satisfied that notability has been established, it's easy enough to re-nominate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth (song)[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:NSONGS. There is no ounce of notability, nothing to indicate that independent third party reviewers critiqued the song. Passable mentions in album reviews and once used in a Discovery channel programme. Gaga has once performed this song, and coupled with that it did not have any chart action at all except an obscure placement in UK, makes it the least passable NSONGS article to be ever created. There is a reason why this was always redirected from the history. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gosh, I am disappointed by the resistance I've faced here, not to mention the language used by experienced editors on talk pages and in their edit summaries while I was actively working on this article. I am not going to vote to keep or delete this article yet, because I am currently finding sources to determine whether or not this song meets notability criteria. Right now, my hunch is that enough information could be found to justify an article, but I am not certain. We had a similar discussion over "Sexxx Dreams". Even WikiProject Lady Gaga participants were resistant, but the article has since been promoted to Good status. Let us all please remain calm and treat one another kindly as we evaluate this topic's notability, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IB, why do you say Gaga only performed the song once? I can find multiple concert reviews discussing her performances. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it indicate the song's notability? The reviews discuss the Monster Ball Tour, not "Teeth" the song. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say her performing the song more than once indicated notability. I just asked why you said she only performed the song once. I was not sure where that was coming from, especially since the song was part of the setlist for The Monster Ball Tour. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Fame Monster doesn't get more than brief mentions outside of album reviews from any reliable sources except for one Music Times link. "The Blaze" is questionable and only provides brief commentary anyway, and Gigwise is not a reliable source. Not enough for a separate article. Can be briefly summarized in parent album article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding here, so are Sputnikmusic: written by an User as well as AXS: a ticekt merchandise. ~~God knows how the creator can even consider them to be reliable~~. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, please stop with the insulting language. Usually one can make a better argument when it doesn't involve name calling and snide remarks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the The Fame Monster. The nomination is OTT but I think the key facts here can be summarised in the article on the album. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this AfD was premature and I wish I had been given more of an opportunity to expand the article. I was in the process of doing so, which I made very clear, yet the article was AfD'd and now it is protected so that I cannot continue to work on its expansion. Perhaps this song could have enough press coverage to justify a stand-alone article, but with this much difficulty exploring the possibility, perhaps I should just move on to other projects. I don't contribute to Wikipedia to be insulted and prevented from try to make constructive edits. Quite disappointing, to be honest. I've posted a few more links on the talk page, which could be incorporated into the article if it is kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 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 02:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Trade 101[edit]

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

Small local organization not notable outside its local area per WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 07:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and Shawn you need to look into the mess before making those comments. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into it. And two wrongs do not make a right. Neelix's terrible work on redirects does not meet that articles created by him on notable Canadian orgs should be punitively Afded, I've listed no less than 4 others where I believe that is the case, at the ANI. Now, as for this one, I've removed my procedural oppose above. A Gnews search reveals prominent mentions of this organization in a CBC news story and one on APTN. here's a prominent Globe and Mail mention. We have the National Post one already on the article. There's others on Gnews. It's sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH so Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete / Redirect - While there are many mentions of the organization and the founders are notable (and indeed both have Wikipedia articles), I'm not finding enough significant coverage of the organization to merit keeping. A redirect is probably sensible. Probably to Bridget Perrier, whose name I see most often connected to the organization in the sources I've seen. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very tangential references in media where they've put out press releases or been quoted for comment in articles not about them: again, I've founded organisations with stronger claims to notability than this (and I would never expect them to get written about on Wikipedia). The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bridget Perrier for now perhaps than deleting as there's not enough coverage at this time for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weronika Książkiewicz[edit]

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

Long but unimportant career--no major roles. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete for now likely as News and Books found several links but I simply found nothing to suggest better, at best a marginally notable article could made if conceivable. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to have a ton of supporting roles, but nothing else. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers requires "significant roles", and I don't see that here. That said, we have probably thousands of articles like this... this is one of those requirements that are not being very hardly applied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 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 keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textfiles.com[edit]

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

Relies entirely on primary sources. Notability itself in question. While an interesting website, until better sources can be found, the information here is potentially misleading. It appears that people close to the website were involved in the creation of this article. Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 17:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw by nomintator. Didn't see the previous debate. Closed as speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirCombat (talk • contribs) 18:00, 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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Better World[edit]

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

Local charitable organization that fails notability guidelines of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This isn't even close. WP:ORG says an org is notable if it has received non-trivial independent coverage. One of the refs is an article about the org's 20th anniversary, and a few of the others currently in the article are also non-trivial coverage. There's even a book about it [5] by a local journalist. Regionally notable is still notable. Gimmetrow 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I respectfully disagree with the "keep" argument above; what WP:ORG actually says isn't an org is notable if it has received non-trivial independent coverage, it's attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary which is clearly not the case here, and there's no indication that this is anything other than a tiny local group of minimal significance. "One of the refs is an article about the org's 20th anniversary" is a totally spurious argument; I can find equally legitimate articles in my own local paper about the 20th anniversaries of the Midhurst Community Bus Association, the Hemel Hempstead branch of Specsavers, the Ballymena Birdwatching Club and the West Dean Gardens Chili Fiesta, but it doesn't mean they qualify for Wikipedia pages by virtue of age. It's certainly possible for small local organisations to be notable by Wikipedia standards, but it needs to be demonstrated that they've had an impact significant enough to warrant the attention of those outside their local community, which this article singularly fails to do, and while it's a difficult name to Google I can't find any evidence that anyone else has noticed them. ‑ iridescent 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rajah's order of Alberta article is mostly about ABW [6]; it's been covered on Canoe [7] [8] - "Having a world-class humanitarian organization in your community presents some great opportunities for news coverage..."; and there's [9]. Gimmetrow 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly not a fan of the creator, but, to be fair, I have to speak in favour of keeping. The organisations unambiguously meets WP:GNG. Has received non-trivial independent coverage. The cited book above clearly adds weight. AusLondonder (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:ORG. There's an awful lot of local coverage and enough national/regional to push it over the top. Adventist World magazine (cover story), founder (via org) one of CBC's Champions of Change, Edmonton Journal (Canada.com), Red Deer Advocate (2 3), LaCombe Express (2 3), Alberta Order of Excellence (primary source, indeed), Canoe.com... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from what I can see, the nominator has taken it upon himself to mass delete a good many articles in Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Canada, with cookie cutter and in some cases deeply flawed or misleading rationales. In this case, A Better World is not a "local" organization - a favoured term of his in nominations, even if when it's not the case - and even if it were, being "local" is not a policy-based reason to delete. It is not the same as merely being a WP:BRANCH. Anyway, we have enough refs to meet notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization has received good press, lots of good connections and even though I live 12 hours drive away I'm familiar with their work. Notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Again, this is not even a close call. There are multiple examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable, mainstream media sources linked on this page above to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites' links to national media coverage, satisfying WP:ORG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG seems to be fulfilled here. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Passes WP:GNG. My searches found lots of reliable sources that can be used to support notability and improve article. Nom fails WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is being missed is the type of sources here. Really, you have references from two publishers and both of them are local. Every high school football team gets local coverage from two different sources, so policy demands we raise the bar a bit higher for corp notability. WP:CORP says it plainly: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. "At least regional", meaning regional coverage is not preferable, but is the minimum bar to useful in demonstrating it passes WP:GNG. When you only have local coverage, they can be used to verify facts, but they can not be used as proof of notability. The sourcing outside of the local doesn't seem to be strong enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like the CBC: [10]; Radio Free Europe:[11]; Adventist Review is also a more-than-regional publication, here:[12], as is Adventist World: [13].E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist World distributes 1.5 million print copies across multiple languages that are then passed around between members in churches, plus who knows how many web subscribers. I'd guess that 10 million people minimum see every monthly issue within 3 or 4 months of publication. The problem here is Neelix was interested in promoting She Has a Name so 2/3rds of the article focuses on a loose connection with that play choosing the charity to raise money for, not on the 20+ years of humanitarian work they have been doing. I'll do some fixing to give things balance later. Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic clearly demonstrates WP:SIGCOV in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search. Mkdw ^talk 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts At Work[edit]

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

Defunct local organization, fails WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 17:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. BMK (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only the barest of local coverage to the extent that it can cite WP:RS at all, and that every link to a person is a red link kind doesn't help its claim either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Not a lot of local coverage and, as far as I can see, little-to-no regional/national coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 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 delete. Biblioworm 01:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk (play)[edit]

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

Non-notable local play, apparently only performed once. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exit stage left. BMK (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only good to get you in the topic article creator list. Legacypac (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:23, 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. Biblioworm 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G-ARRP[edit]

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

Non-notable individual plane. The only claim to fame is being the oldest surviving Piper PA-28 Cherokee, but I can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another spamcan; no references to support claim of notability. Current FAA register shows at least 12 older PA-28s. . Mean as custard (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, has no refs other than a listing on the aircraft registry, which lists all aircraft and so does not show notability, completely fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability#Individual_aircraft. Just nothing notable about this aircraft. Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Correction - Google found two blurry shots - whoo hoo - still not noteworthy, even for a mention on the Cherokee page.NiD.29 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG etc., etc..--Petebutt (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another light aircraft. The snow is falling.TheLongTone (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of anything notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Fouls[edit]

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

Non-notable local play. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is now expanded. Meets WP:GEOSCOPE, performed in schools throughout Alberta, in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and at the Neptune Theatre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. WP:DEPTH is adequate in WP:RS from Toronto and Edmonton. Meets WP:LASTING; premiered in 1999, published in 2009, performed as recently as 2011. Helps balance the encyclopedia for systematic bias in two ways. First, with respect to ethnicity, by featuring the presentation of ethnically diverse characters by an indigenous cultural initiative, the All Nations Theatre. Second, with respect to expanding youth-oriented cultural coverage beyond commercial pop culture, by describing an entertainment production in Canadian schools designed to address anti-racism issues from a literary and educational perspective. --Djembayz (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't say it any better than User:Djembayz AusLondonder (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been produced by some of the more notable regional theatres in Canada. Nominated for a major and enough WP:SIGCOV otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 19:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Dad[edit]

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

Non-notable local play with only a short run. Kelly ^hi! 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BMK (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to just close this and other members of this walled garden, but just in case I'll simply vote delete. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be fair it wasn't just a local play, it played all across western Canada. That being said I am not sure its notable so I will just leave this as a comment. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 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 redirect to Shoehorn#Turn of phrase (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoehorning[edit]

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

From Wikipedia's deletion policy page, reason #7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" In addition to this, topic is not notable enough to warrant a page. Heilige Krieger (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tweak to fit more general definition found here.[14], [15] Very common term used beyond psychics. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ would seem to fall foul of WP:NEO, has only a single source. Possibly this topic could be covered better within a general article on psychics or con artists? 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? I listed two sources above. And as I said, it is not only a reference to psychics and con artists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect per below. Artw (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Redirect to Shoehorn#Turn of phrase - I disagree that the topic is not notable. However, I agree that the page as currently constructed is too focused on applying the term to the paranormal when it is a general term which has been applied to many other contexts (such as business, ^[1] education,^[2] lingusitics,^[3] and others). However, Wikpedia is not a dictionary and I can't imagine the article being much more than a dictionary definition and perhaps an unmaintainable list of examples from various fields and contexts. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Doz, Yves; Santos, Jose; Williamson, Peter (2001). From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy. Harvard Business Press. pp. 85–114. ISBN 9780875848709. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
^ Goldstein, Lisa (July 16, 2015). Using Developmentally Appropriate Practices to Teach the Common Core: Grades PreK–3. Routledge. ISBN 9781317743620. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
^ Harris, Amanda; Thieberger, Nick; Barwick, Linda (October 2, 2015). Research, Records and Responsibility: Ten years of PARADISEC. Sydney University Press. pp. 115–132. ISBN 9781743324431. Retrieved 8 November 2015.

- Christ on a cracker. If a topic is notable, it's not fit for deletion. The article's current state has nothing to do with this discussion. WP:DEL-REASON —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say the article's current state has anything to do with if it should be deleted or not. I said that any possible article on this topic would be nothing more than a dictionary definition and thereby violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is a long-established policy. Notability isn't the only deletion criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect After reading the discussion above, I have changed my mind on the article's topic's notability, but still feel that it does not warrant a page of its own.Heilige Krieger (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above; as per WP:NOTDIC, it doesn't need a standalone article. The larger article with the photograph gives helpful context for readers who may not have had occasion to use a shoehorn. --Djembayz (talk) 12:26, 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 02:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Ertman[edit]

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

Non-notable local theater figure. Fails WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - passable notability BMK (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local theatre figure: by this standard we could have an article on everyone who's ever done a bit of amateur theatre. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is the artistic director of Rosebud Theatre which just went delete as well. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW Drmies (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alysa van Haastert[edit]

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

Local theater actor, fails notability guidelines in WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources appear to be newspapers or theatre magazines, this doesn't sound good.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I see nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable actor. BMK (talk) 15:28, 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. Biblioworm 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Chew[edit]

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

Local theater actor, fails notability guidelines in WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 17:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BMK (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor stage actor; not even really a claim to notability here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:35, 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 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Kennedy[edit]

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

Local theater actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, apparently only one nomination for a local award. Kelly ^hi! 17:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better aside from the detailed and sourced article. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete evidently created to bluster the play about human trafficking. No notability. Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another non-notable actor. Did Neelix promote these people for free? BMK (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E - appears to be only known for one play and sources relegate him to little more than a sentence or two. After that, the page should be re-appropriated as a redirect to Karl Kennedy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:19, 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. Biblioworm 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glenda Warkentin[edit]

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

Local theater actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing for a better article yet aside from local work. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, in the world according to Neelix, Rosebud, Alberta, Canada has the highest percentage of notable actors in the Northern hemisphere, despite no one outside their families and the theatre community in Rosebud every having heard of them. Fails notability. BMK (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is getting ridiculous: having played any acting role at all in a minor play a Wikipedia editor is obsessed with is not a claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:34, 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 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Howell-Holden[edit]

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

Local theater actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing better to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the Admin's quest to embellish anyone remotely related to his favorite plays. Legacypac (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. BMK (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random person who was in a play once, arguably could have been speedied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 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 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Wong[edit]

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

Local theater actor, fails WP:NACTOR guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aren't these actors lucky to have piqued the interest of a prolific WP editor? Non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much by way of significant coverage, and what there is is local. Fails WP:NACTOR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete helps to be in a minor play about human trafficking eh? Legacypac (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor role in a random play. This obsessive walled garden gets creepier as hell the further down the AfD page I get. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:32, 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 delete. Biblioworm 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Krogman[edit]

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

Local theater actor who fails WP:NACTOR. Has some local reviews and that's it. Kelly ^hi! 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better for a local actor. SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local amateur stage actor, no claim to notability, probably could have been speedied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:31, 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 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lepa Jankovic[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria. Local law enforcement official really only notable for one criminal investigation, which is mentioned in one sentence of this short article. The rest is just fluff about people she has met or comments people have made about her. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, fails notability criteria. As for why this was created "people she has met" = Tara Teng. AusLondonder (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Looks like a number of sources and stopping human trafficking is an important topic; I'd like to see expansion, so let's see if it can be improved. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor women was just doing her job when she met Tara Teng and that fame brushed off on her. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jeez, non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 99% of the article is not even about her. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Softlavender is right; the references to her are so trivial that the article isn't even about her - she's a police officer, and not even one in a public capacity; this is a hot mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:30, 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 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jassy Bindra[edit]

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

Local police official, no evidence of notability aside from giving some local talks or appearing at some regional conferences. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia -related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect: to She Has a Name. ~~I'm leaning delete,~~Metropolis Project is an international event, I'll grant that the city hall or local college talks aren't notable; but she's not "local,"she holds a province-wide job; would a similar position in, say, California or New York meet GNG? ~~but I'd like someone familiar with the issue to see if this individual participated in more notable events;~~ Vancouver would be a center for anti-human trafficking activism, given its large Asian population and location as an international port city. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - human trafficking in Canada is notable. Not everybody who is against it is. WP:GNG not met. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speaking in these places is not notable, its her job. Legacypac (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local officials are not inherently notable. BMK (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's a local police officer doing public relations work: it's her job, there's zero claim to individual notability here, and if this was notable there's about 50,000 people working in identical roles with equal claims to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 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 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Fiolleau[edit]

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

No evidence or reliable sourcing to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 16:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender -related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably another article created in the creepy web of Tara Teng worship. Only apparent claim to "notability" was meeting Tara Teng. AusLondonder (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just because she crossed paths with the unduly ubiquitous Tara Teng doesn't confer automatic non-notability. Let's see what gets dug up with the other articles on RCMPs and other Canadian law enforcement officials working to stop human trafficking. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage outside of Ontario. VERY CREEPY. This sentence in particular: "She thereby entered the sex industry and became a famous Madam married to the Mafia" - how is this encyclopedic in tone? Sounds the teaser to a Skinemax movie!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creepily written article on non-notable person that only seems to have been created because of her connections to Tara Teng; others put it well as well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she has had some press as an advocate, but the article is seriously bad. If she is notable it should have a section on her falling into prostitution and becoming a madam. Then a section on her advocacy. I'm tempted to TNT it which would allow someone to recreate and write a proper article. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's "creepy" is the endless recitations of how "creepy" the article creator has been, insinuating the most lurid interpretations for what he's done. We know that he was a prostitution abolitionist and that was his interest in creating these articles. Enough already. Sometimes the creepiness you see is your own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G7 Biblioworm 17:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers men's basketball team[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Season is still a year away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm author. I'll just save the reference in my sandbox. That is the primary reason I set it up.--El Mayimbe (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and proposal @El Mayimbe: and proposal. It is way too early for an article like this. The coaches can all change between now and then, the schedule isn't up, etc etc. Big college programs, like Duke, don't have an article yet for its 2016-2017. Kansas is a redirect which gives me an idea. Make this article into a redirect. Leave it as such till the late spring or summer of next year when tons of more information on next season is sure to be available. Please reply back. If you agree, I'll do the redirect and get an administrator to close this AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:18, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daraa offensive (October 2015)[edit]

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

None of the sources use the term "Daraa offensive", so the whole title may be WP:OR. Also fails WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the provided sources confirm any ongoing organised offensive taking place in Daraa province. So, per nom, the whole article is generally unsourced OR. Also, most of the provided sources (SANA, Fars and Al Manar) are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia when it comes to the Syrian conflict and are generally not allowed to be used as sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. too many articles about the conflict already to have fake ones. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as well, it fails GNG along with the massive lack of RS. - SantiLak (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entire delete argument seems to be based on lack of reliability of Iranian, Syrian and Russian press in the view of Wikipedia. I didn't realize this was Murdochopedia or Saudiopedia. Offensive, all the dead fighters, commanders who are fighting in it are CLEARLY notable and OR? Pah! SANA reports on it every day and all the deaths. And I have opened a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here [16] already discussing SANA where it seems to have been generally agreed they are reliable as a government spokesperson if credited properly (which I do). FARS (liable to the same Wikipedia RS precedent in my SANA discussion) calls it the "Daraa Offensive" (do voters even read the sources!) and reports almost hourly updates on it. This Southern (clearly not Northern) offensive is aimed at cutting the Saudi supply lines from Jordan. (Personal attack removed) Guru Noel (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be warned that accusing Wikipedia of being accomplice to genocide and accusing your fellow Wikipedia editors of being Nazis is highly inflammatory language that could get you banned. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you take a look at WP:CIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND - SantiLak (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete after assessing the arguments. Legacypac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and SantiLak. Fails GNG. Also pinging Legacypac that they should strike one of their !votes.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Legacypac (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - WP:BEFORE wasn't even followed, as noted below being unreferenced isn't a reason to delete. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Convention Center[edit]

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

No sources. IPadPerson (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an article being unreferenced is not a reason to delete it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously needs sources but seems notable otherwise. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as it may be improvable. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EVE (organization)[edit]

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

Not a notable organization per WP:ORG. Sources are self-published, local, or tangentially mention the subject. Kelly ^hi! 14:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, delete. Marginal relevance, inflated claims in the article, part of walled garden, and sources do not provide significant discussion of the topic. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons given by Kelly. Rab V (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as others. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively / Redirect to Trisha Baptie, the founder of the organization. I'm seeing some sources, but among those of substance the focus is more on her than the organization, making it a pretty sensible merge/redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial references, very minor claims to notability. I've created organisations that have better hope of passing guidelines than this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:26, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah's Gate[edit]

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

Not a notable organization/place per WP:ORG. Strictly local and minor coverage. Kelly ^hi! 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Source coverage is trivial mentions about other Salvation Army campaigns and organizations which happen to fund this shelter. Not independently notable. No redirect option per WP:XY. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator is a known Salvationist, doing advocacy on Wikipedia. Don't need a Wiki article on every property the group owns. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an atheist, I'm not a fan of the Salvation Army, but I don't just see local coverage here and I see a problem with the discussion. It seems as if the votes on this AfD are biased, because it shouldn't matter if the person is interested in the Salvation Army or not--you may as well tell me not to write about atheists or women because I'm both of those. Also, I disagree with the idea that local coverage negates notability: especially if the city is as large as Vancouver. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, the coverage is purely local, and it's not very in-depth. Sources like this don't help either, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (thanks) I've visited here, its just a homeless shelter. Good but not notable. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not seeing enough to pass WP:ORG/WP:GNG. There was a press release put out by the Canadian government about providing some funds to the organization and a few major outlets picked it up, but it's still just a press release. I have to say, though, I wonder if there's a way to combine all of these locally/marginally notable related topics into something bigger without relying on synthesis (something like "human trafficking activism in Canada"? Meh.). PS: @Legacypac: Likely an accident, but ~~you !voted twice above~~. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a random minor organisation created as a part of a concerted advocacy push; coverage is very trivial and to accept it as sufficient would extend guidelines in this area way beyond what they have traditionally been. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 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 02:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation[edit]

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

Not a notable organization per WP:ORG. Strictly local news coverage (or tangential mentions), no evidence of widespread or lasting impact. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable source coverage. Several of the sources are local-market newspapers, but they are local markets which are nationally distributed. The London Free Press markets on the opposite side of the continent from where this organization operates. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no--delete. The coverage is minor, and even if that London Free Press is worldwide, we're still talking about a couple of newspaper articles. We're writing an encyclopedia and should aim higher, much higher. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Softlavender (talk)
Delete. This is very minor coverage of a very minor lobby group, falls well short of both guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:23, 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. Close per WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Free (organization)[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Strictly local and minor news coverage, no evidence of widespread or lasting impact. Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. Minor coverage, passing mentions and some quotes. Jbh ^Talk 21:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. purely local DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's Seemingly nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:NORG. Coverage fails WP:AUD. Jbh ^Talk 00:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem Jbhunley, were you aware you voted earlier?

SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Nope.. Oppss...

... Thank you. Struck. Jbh ^Talk 02:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. BMK (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of creators obsession. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vednita Carter[edit]

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

Not a notable author or activist. Coverage in sources is strictly local, the only recognition received was apparently that she was one of six women recognized in 2012 by a local 2-year community college. Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [17] author. In Routledge book. [18] in a book from Stanford University Press. [19] Simon & Schuster. [20] substantial mention n a book from Gill & Macmillan. And so on. And I daresay Stanford, Routledge, etc. are not "local coverage" sources. Sorry -- one more female BLP which should be kept. Collect (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but having (co-)authored three chapters doesn't mean one passes the GNG. The reference in the Paid For book is helpful, but let's remember that the book is an autobiography, not an academic study of her or her activism. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Sources: She was one of CNN's 'Heroes', GB Times, TC Daily Planet, MPR News, CBS Local, Huffington Post, KSTP, Bismarck Tribune, TwinCities, TwinCities again. Some local, some regional, and a few national. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned it up a bit and expanded the bibliography, I think that ought to be enough. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag with NPOV issues, as Carter has been the subject of considerable controversy in reliable sources that isn't mentioned here because of the author's obvious bias. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:22, 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. Delete per WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignite the Road to Justice[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria of WP:EVENT. Local event, no evidence of any impact. Yet another article in the Tara Teng universe. Kelly ^hi! 14:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news has only four English sources ([21]). No evidence of notability beyond 2011 in any Google News sources. -- Callinus (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Borderline notability. Has received some media coverage. However, no lasting significance and the role of the creator and Teng tips the balance in favour of deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an extension of the puff piece that is the Teng article Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wealth management. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial life management[edit]

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

Judging by sources, this is a phrase which is only used by United Capital as branding. The actual distinction between this and wealth management isn't clear, and the article basically admits it was developed as a way to make wealth management sound more appealing. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. This appears to be one company's branding. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not sure it's just a United Capital term, though they do look like the most widely associated entity with it due to a recent rebranding? But looks like other firms do practice/offer financial life management services including these ones Telemus, Sheehan, Financial Life Management Inc., and even Vista Wealth which also offers wealth management, so they are seemingly different topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.202.95 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2015‎

I stand corrected, but those sources are very, very flimsy regarding what the term actually means. The more I look at this, the less I understand what the difference is, if there is one. Financial Life Management requires a disciplined approach that integrates a broad array of solutions. Sounds impressive, but that doesn't actually mean very much. Financial Life Management is unique in that its goal is to help you achieve your heart's wishes, not just your financial goals. Wow! That's a hell of claim to make. What are they actually doing different, here? I'm seeing a lot of cringe-inducing cliches and platitudes, but no content.

Financiallifemgmt.com is a tiny company which doesn't seem to have a strong connection to the term as defined by the article. It's not usable as a source, but if it were it would only further dilute the meaning of the term. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see what you mean. I believe the difference is being stressed as that financial life management focuses on quality of life and trade-off's, while wealth management is purely numbers based. Here is a company that sells training/seminars on financial topics including this one. And apparently BOA is moving towards this distinction too, see here. I've seen other examples of closely related terms/concepts on Wiki articles like Money management versus Investment management. Maybe it's splitting hairs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.202.95 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are, again, interesting sources that don't fully address my concern. While it's clear to me now that there is a concept used in marketing that could be labeled this, I still don't understand what the supposed functional difference is as supported by sources. The BoA press release is bad statistics: 83 percent of companies feel a sense of responsibility for the financial wellness of their employees? No reliable study would ask such leading questions and expect meaningful results. This is part of a trend that's been going on for a while towards 'financial wellness' (hopefully the worst buzzword I have to type today) but the sources are infuriatingly vague about it. Let's go with a Sliding Doors scenario: In one universe I go to a wealth manager, in the other I go to a financial life manager. Both are presumably asking me what my goals are, and are helping me make financial choices, so what's the actually difference? How does my life differ in these two universes? This seems like a very repetitive movie, and the distinction is more about attitude than about action. If that's the case, this is just self-indulgent nonsense, or at best it's worth a paragraph in another article.

As for money management and investment management, both of those are redundant and under-sourced, and I would support merging them together, but since I'm not going to tackle that task right now, that can be shelved under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Financial articles on Wikipedia are already prone to WP:NOTESSAY and covert advertising. Deleting this article would work against that, but it's a drop in the bucket, unfortunately. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Selective Merge to Wealth management. It may primarily be the work of one company, but regardless, it's just a variation of Wealth management (even the source it cites in the lead is about "redefin[ing] 'wealth management'"). Might be worth mentioning there if sources justify it, but doesn't merit a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wealth management. Subject isn't discussed on a corresponding page enough to warrant a separate article. There's potentially a little info here that could be carried over in a section to Wealth management, but certainly most of this can go. Jppcap (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to wealth management per others. Citobun (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As before, this time also per WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Week[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria of WP:EVENT. Strictly locall, no evidence of lasting impact. Apparently part of the walled garden of Tara Teng articles by Neelix. Kelly ^hi! 14:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previously deleted as non-notable in 2006. Some of the references are dead links, on sites that appear to have overt financial/ideological connections to the subject matter. -- Callinus (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous 2006 deletion justification:

"Delete, non-notable event that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in any notable, non-trivial media sources. Few relevant Google results [22].--User:Tree Biting Conspiracy 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

Click that link - only a few hundred hits (Or try ""Freedom Week" teng" for under 1,000) - obviously fails Google test. It's patent nonsense to have an article on a topic with <1000 google hits and no evidence of lasting impact. -- Callinus (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-event from a notability viewpoint. Jbh ^Talk 21:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. "organised by Tara Teng" - really? I wouldn't have guessed it! AusLondonder (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has not gotten more notable since 2006. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete walled garden stuff. BMK (talk) 15:13, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Bailey[edit]

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

Declined a PROD as there are sources, but the sources are trivial and do not establish notability as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:25, 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) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging MichaelQSchmidt and Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Lots of hits for folks with this name on the search engines, but can't find any in-depth coverage to show this particular actor's notability. He did have one of the two leads on an Emmy-Award winning show, Emma Approved. It's a web-based show, but a Creative Content Emmy is still a major Emmy (as opposed to a Regional Emmy). But other than that, he hasn't had a real significant role. If someone were to come up with some in-depth references from reliable sources that I couldn't find, I'd be more than willing to re-think my !vote. Ping me if you do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and allow this reasonably new article further expansion and sourcing per career meeting WP:ENT and recognitions meeting WP:ANYBIO, for it was not all too difficult to find that he has received multiple nominations... an Indie Series Awards nomination as 'Best Lead Actor' for My Synthesized Life, a Streamy Awards nomination for 'Best Male Actor in a Comedy Web Series' for Emma Approved, and a shared International Academy of Web Television award nomination for 'Best Ensemble Performance' for Emma Approved. Diligence is often fruitful. Pinging JzG, SwisterTwister, and onel5969 Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow more editors time to chime in. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MichaelQSchmidt's are well-taken, and I saw those before casting my !vote, but those are not notable awards. To me it's still a question of in-depth coverage, but still willing to take another look if that coverage appears. Btw, MQS, your ping didn't work - just happened back to this article since it was still open. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal interpretation of awards is fine, but I base mine own upon award notability established through WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelQSchmidt - as do I. You simply interpret it differently than I do. There are awards which have their own pages, yet they are not considered important enough to show notability of their recipients on their own. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Well, even if an editor chooses to personally reinterpret WP:ANYBIO, Bailey's career meets WP:ENT and coverage found through due diligence meets WP:GNG. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources, credits, prizes now on page add up to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bukola Oriola[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria given in WP:JOURNALIST. Kelly ^hi! 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Kelly's reasoning

samtar ^{t} 13:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Article requires expansion, but an author, journalist and activist, particularly of third-world origin, working on a timely topic, seems notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced and notable. Multiple sources via Google news. The person is not a "noted columnist" as far as the US goes, and the biography makes clear why that yardstick is totally inapplicable. Another female to have a BLP deleted? Collect (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as this seems marginally notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The evidence of the subject's notability seemed clear. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources: [23] exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kap Slap[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JMHamo, This page should not be deleted as the subject of the page is notable, and the sources are reliable. "Kap Slap," the subject of the page is a well known musician that has released a hit single on the U.S dance charts. He has reached millions of fans online through his music mixes, and has been on multiple tours in which he sold out many locations. He is also on a major record label - Ultra Music. All of sources used in the article are reliable and have not been plagiarized from. The page could edit from various edits, but it should not be deleted. Thank you for your consideration Elant123 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Elant123[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Elant123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Elant123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete for now and let me know when there are better sources so we can consider accepting a better article because for now, the current sources are simply not going to cut it. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources to the page. Has the page's notability and credibility improved? Elant123 (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Elant123[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Elant123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Elant123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to figure out if any of the references are RS. Many are event listings, others are sales/promotion sites or his own site. EDMtunes looks like a blog and has no visible "about us." Dancing Astronaut seems to be solid, but it has only a very short piece about him. Can anyone comment on EDMtunes? LaMona (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the link to EDMtunes' facebook page https://www.facebook.com/EDMTunes?fref=ts with over 600,000 likes. Here is Your EDM's facebook page with over 1 million likes: https://www.facebook.com/YourEdm?fref=ts. Both are popular and credible sources Elant123 (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Elant123[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Elant123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Elant123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"popular" does not a reliable source make, and neither does facebook, which is the journal talking about itself. What we need is an editorial board and policy, and some outside confirmation that it is reliable. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Bearian, [email protected] and Newyorkbrad. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give it more time for more editors to chime in Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches suggest, despite the Wikipedia:Bombardment, that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the WP:BASIC are not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now that the page has been deleted, how can I access the information I wrote? It must be archived somewhere right? It would be a shame to lose all the information I wrote. Thanks! Elant123 (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Elant123[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mélanie Paquin[edit]

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

Non-notable person per WP:BLP1E. Won a single beauty pageant...and the majority of this stub article is fluff. Unlikely to ever be expanded or improved. Kelly ^hi! 13:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So it seems this article was created because Paquin preceded Teng as Miss Canada. No long term notability or significance. Again another rather off-putting article painting an individual in the Teng Universe as the Second Coming of Christ AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Inquiry~~: Per answers below. Being Miss Canada confers notability per GNG as a national-level pageant~~Do we routinely do articles on the individuals winning Miss America and Miss USA? If so, why treat Canadians differently? (If not, then carry on and never mind).~~ Montanabw ^(talk) 23:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And we do. BLP is sourced, and I think deleting a slew of "female BLPs" is not a super great aim. We even have full contestant lists by state for Miss America! (And an unlinked list for Miss Guam winners. Canada is clearly "not worth noticing" I fear. Collect (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of those should be deleted then, User:Collect? To suggest though that some anti-Canadian bias is taking place here is blatantly wrong and misleading. AusLondonder (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it - my comment was directed at Montanabw's comments, and not in any way designed to be dismissive of Canada or overly laudatory of Canada - and your statement that my post was blatantly false and misleading is something I ask you to redact. Collect (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to this "Canada is clearly "not worth noticing" I fear". How could you get that mixed up? AusLondonder (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to totally miss the comment at which that was quite obviously directed: If so, why treat Canadians differently? Collect (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Miss Canada is a top-level pageant (akin to national championship title in sports) and thus she has earned notability. Article should be defluffed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pages on women are important. This one is notable. I noticed this a the BLP page. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Many_female_BLPs_up_for_deletion. I hope people do not nominate for deletion articles on women. QuackGuru (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from what I can gather, this pageant is similar to Miss America and is top-level, so this individual surely meets notability. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 19:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Winning Miss Canada is a strong claim to notability, but "works as a bartender" for someone with a very thin biographical article is hardly a compelling rationale for keeping. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:20, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Thomsen[edit]

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

Apparently part of a walled garden of articles relating to Tara Teng and her life and interests. Virtually the entire biographical content of this article relates to a meeting with Teng. Kelly ^hi! 13:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

limited notability redirect to Miss World Denmark Govindaharihari (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was crowned Miss World Denmark in 2012, but I'm not sure if country-level pageant winners are particularly notable. If so, the article could be stubified. However, it would probably stay a stub forever. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, dear. It is very clear why this individual has an article. A certain editor has been on an unpaid advocacy spree for Teng. Not every person to have ever had the "honour" of being in the company of Tara Teng is notable (Teng is actually the main topic and purpose of this page). This page makes me feel rather sick and disturbed. AusLondonder (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not have said this better myself Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Performing-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Clpo13. This one is of extremely dubious notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficiently notable. Note Danish sources such as the Danish Miss World site mention her. She appears to be the first person of Indian origin to win the title unless Google is really bad. (" My mother was born in Mumbai, India, the youngest of seven, with one brother and five sisters. Her family were members of the Jewish community in India. ") with the paucity of articles about women on Wikipedia, deleting this one might seem poorly advised. Collect (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collect - are you seriously saying we should keep her because a Miss World site mentions her? AusLondonder (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I did not claim that, why the effing hell do you try implying that I did? Collect (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the 'effing hell' did you say this: "Note Danish sources such as the Danish Miss World site mention her." AusLondonder (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fact the person is Danish and one would expect many newspapers in Denmark are actually in Denmark elides you? Collect (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked the "Danish Miss World site" is not a newspaper. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Stop being so misleading. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never called that site a newspaper, and your responses here are now on the ragged edge of animals under a bridge. A person born in Rumania would likely have newspapers in Rumania which are written in Rumanian be a source, as well as organizations which are in Rumania and written in Rumanian be a source, and books from Rumania written in Rumania be a source. Better now? Collect (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect there's no article on her in other wiki language projects. If she has made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" you could ask WikiProject Denmark to write an article on her on da.wikipedia.org, then get an English translation. -- Callinus (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might you show me a policy or guideline saying "persons who do not have an article in their own native Wikipedia are automatically not notable for the English Wikipedia" or that Tara Teng I a reason for deletion of any BLP? If you do not like that BLP, bring it to AfD, but it is an improper reason for deletion of this BLP. I note further that the other women mentioned in the BLP but whose BLPs were not started by Neelix are not at AfD by the way so I doubt that Tara Teng is the reason for this AfD.. Collect (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect Look up ""miss denmark" site:.dk" on google news - I get 22 results in Danish newspapers, none specifically about this woman. Try "Iris Thomsen" on Google News - out of the seven results, two are about a German artist. You say that "Danish sources" mention Iris Thomsen - yet none are indexed on Google News.

There is no demonstration that this woman has any notability over any of the others on Miss Denmark - all of whom do not have articles (all of the others have press releases on missdanmark.dk - because missdanmark.dk publishes promotional puffery on all their models). If

WP:OTHER is not a good argument in deletion discussions.-- Callinus (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collect Frankly I am bloody sick of your misleading conduct. You said ""Note Danish sources such as the Danish Miss World site mention her" and only introduced the concept of newspapers in a reply to me when I said "are you seriously saying we should keep her because a Miss World site mentions her?" Your reply was "Perhaps the fact the person is Danish and one would expect many newspapers in Denmark are actually in Denmark elides you?" You had not mentioned newspapers until then. Moreover, other editors have proven they don't anyway. So why did you say that they did? Are you being dishonest on purpose or are you just confused? By the way, it is spelt Romania. AusLondonder (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When "correcting" someone, one ought to make sure that they are actually "correcting" that person. [24] Both spellings are legal. [25]. Meanwhile you are not officially, in my opinion, in the territory of the proverbial bridge. Collect (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother responding to your latest crap. You were wrong about Danish coverage. You were wrong about when you said newspapers. You are wrong about 'Rumania', which is considered archaic. "Romania became the predominant spelling around 1975. Romania is also the official English-language spelling used by the Romanian government". Best get your facts right before you open your mouth AusLondonder (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was born quite before 1975. 2. "Rumania" was used in some cases to avoid confusion with the Romansch peoples. 3. Some places still use "Rumania" as the spelling. 4. Major dictionaries allow for both spellings. 5. When you start spouting about "facts" you should really make sure what you aver as pure fact is such. 6. You seem to posit that I must know only English here. 7. You are now well and truly a bridge denizen. Collect (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think that is quite obvious. 2. Not relevant. 3. Examples? 4. Never in the first instance and only for clarification purposes. 5. I could say the exact same thing to you!. 6. Rumania is not the proper term. It is România in Romanian. 7. It takes one to know one. AusLondonder (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously creepy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English Google News has only seven results - no justification of lasting impact. Article does not document any "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (WP:NMODEL), instead only discussing her meeting the "great" Tara Teng. -- Callinus (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously, BMK (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sheer, enormous amount of harassment piled upon someone in this thread for choosing to vote Keep is disgusting. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 23:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "disgusting harassment" is the process recommended by WP:AFD "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements". It is only reasonable that other editors will challenge why an editor claimed the subject had received Danish newspaper coverage when they haven't. It is only reasonable that other editors will call out an editor who engages in misleading conduct, namely stating "Note Danish sources such as the Danish Miss World site mention her" and pretending they meant newspaper. What is the disgusting harassment you refer to? Also, this is not a WP:VOTE. AusLondonder (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I see you have quite an issue with perceived "harassment" on Wikipedia. Your user page states "I archive every and all harassment made against me" and practically all your userboxes relate to "harassment". AusLondonder (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, precisely, how "seriously creepy" is reasonable discussion? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't harassment. Who voting keep was harassed by that comment? AusLondonder (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was it then!? Constructive criticism? Oh, wait, that must be a valid argument!/s Except it isn't a valid argument and sadly, this whole AfD looks to be either canvassed or individuals following someone around on Wikipedia. Also, it is a vote. Those articles with the most deletes get deleted. Have a good day. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't directed at anyone voting keep? You said "The sheer, enormous amount of harassment piled upon someone in this thread for choosing to vote Keep is disgusting". The creepy comment was not piled upon a keep "voter" AusLondonder (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The walled garden/stalker site around Tara Teng, of which this is part, IS seriously creepy, so much so that its a big part of an ArbCom case [26] seeking to revoke the creators admin tools.Seriously Neelix had in the Teng article how she has been "asked on dates", "never joined an online dating site" and that she "likes Pacific sunsets. It was a 100,000+ byte article. Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will admit you are wrong now User:MurderByDeadcopy, that no harassment of anyone (other than Tara Teng) has taken place and apologise? AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a thinly referenced article about a non-notable beauty pageant contestant who has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. All we have here are a few brief passing mentions, which do not establish notability and do not provide the basis for a true biography. We should not be keeping articles which are the products of one editor's unseemly obsessions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale and others subsequent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how open you make a search on her name, there is simply not enough sources found to meet WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Disappearance of Jessie Foster. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glendene Grant[edit]

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

Non-notable person, mother of a missing person who apparently hosted a podcast. I would recommend merge to Disappearance of Jessie Foster but that article itself has notability problems. I think WP:BLP1E would also apply here. Kelly ^hi! 13:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: Topic of importance, similar disappearances have led to others forming major national organizations, e.g. Amber Alert and such. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant news coverage. [27] [28] [29] etc. Collect (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and retarget to Disappearance of Jessie Foster, the event for which she is notable. The organizations and all that can/should be mentioned there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to disappearance of Jessie Foster. This is what she's notable for, and pretty much everything we know about her can fit in there. There's no reason why we can't describe her activism and background, but as far as I can tell, all the coverage about her is in the context of her daughter's disappearance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I just did a little clean up on the target. Legacypac (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not notable enough for her own article (internet radio show? really? that's not even a claim to notability), insufficient independent coverage of her specifically, and a merge seems like a sensible outcome. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with no prejudice against later splitting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 While it is true that it is not the same concept, the other editors are correct in the larger issue, namely the concerns about reliable sources there within. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barechestedness[edit]

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

Really little more than a dictionary definition including a reference to Jersey Shore. To the extent it is needed at all, could be merged to Toplessness. Kelly ^hi! 13:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect to Toplessness - better article on same topic. -- Callinus (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article pops up again and again, and is equally ridiculous each time. Remember Putin?? Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 18:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect any usable content to toplessness -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even used/mentioned in any of the sources within the article.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to toplessness: no reason to have a separate article for the same concept. I'd also recommend broadening that article to include male toplessness. --Slashme (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not the same concept. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so we can clean up all the pointless redirects as well as this pointless article. It's as much a thing as barefeetedness. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 01:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahjong in the Garden[edit]

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

I can't find any indication of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's nice to give a new user more than a half an hour to work on a page before nominating it for deletion. This said, I don't see any game by this exact title having any kind of widespread coverage. czar 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even a Welcome would be nice? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:33, 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 1967 NFL draft. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1967 American Football League draft[edit]

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

This article should be removed and replaced with a redirect to 1967 NFL draft since that article more completely documents the Common draft that was instituted between the two leagues. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative delete~~ - At first glance, this looks like a no-brainer. There appears to be be virtually no content in this article, and what there is, is already covered in greater depth by the 1967 NFL Draft article. Am I missing something here? Also, given that this was the first year of the so-called "Common Draft," should we also not be contemplating a re-name of the 1967 NFL Draft article to recognize this? If memory serves, the Pro Football Hall of Fame refers to the "common draft" years as something other than simply the "196x NFL Draft" . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I have struck my "delete" vote above, and changed it to "redirect" per DeeJayK's proposed plan of reorganization outlined below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to to renaming the 1967 NFL draft article to something like 1967 NFL/AFL draft (which actually already exists as a redirect to the 1967 NFL draft article). Obviously if we make that change for 1967 NFL draft we'd want to make similar changes to the 1968 and 1969 "Common draft" articles at the same time. However, I figured it would be simpler to tackle one change at a time. If it's preferable to make these changes all at once, that's fine with me, too. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is going forward, so it's not a bad idea to discuss naming while you've got 6 or 7 football editors focused on it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so my ideal end state for this short series of articles on the Common draft:

1967 NFL draft renamed 1967 NFL/AFL draft; 1967 NFL draft redirected to this new name
1968 NFL draft renamed 1968 NFL/AFL draft; 1968 NFL draft redirected to this new name
1969 NFL draft renamed 1969 NFL/AFL draft; 1969 NFL draft redirected to this new name
1967 American Football League draft be blanked and redirected to (newly renamed) 1967 NFL/AFL draft
1968 American Football League draft be blanked and redirected to (newly renamed) 1968 NFL/AFL draft

Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deejayk: I think that sounds like a good plan. I suggest you add the 1968 and 1969 AFL Draft articles to this AfD (don't forget to put AfD notices on the articles and notify the article creators), so we can deal with all similarly situated articles at once. Then let's see if we can stir up some more participation in this discussion by the WP:NFL and WP:CFB regulars. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated 1968 American Football League draft for deletion. 1969 American Football League Draft only exists as a redirect to 1969 NFL draft, so that can be cleaned up easily if/when the changes we're discussing are made. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DeeJayK's proposed plan of reorganization for the 1967, 1968 and 1969 NFL/AFL Draft and related articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 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 12:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1967 NFL draft. This article is redundant to the common draft article. Renames of the target can either be done boldly or via a formal WP:RM outside of this AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Like before, there's plenty of original research, and little of any encyclopaedic value. Adam9007 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, and salt after the repeated re-creation. The previously deleted version had no references, and wasn't fully discussed (the AfD ended early after a speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11) so that may be enough to save this from G4 deletion. And it seems likely that in the academic literature on teaching strategies there is published material on games as an educational strategy. But this is basically a personal reflection sourced to some web sites, together with strong assertions about the effectiveness of this strategy that are completely unsourced. It gives the impression of existing only as an excuse for linking one of its sources (presumably the teachhub one) rather than to accurately reflect established knowledge. If the subject has any notability, it isn't reflected in the content. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over, I'm afraid. The topic of Teaching games I'd think would be notable with plenty of research over the years, but this opinion-rich, fact-poor article, with what looks to be a good dollop of Conflict of Interest into the bargain, is in no way a plausible attempt at such an article. Let's get rid of it and await an article which at least tries to cover the field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 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 keep. Jenks24 (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Van Zeeland[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no independent coverage in reliable sources beyond "said Ashley Van Zeeland". The current content is unduly promotional. See also User talk:Aphende. Huon (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly although I'm also not entirely sure as I easily found some links at Books, News, Highbeam and Scholar (?, lists as Ashley Scott-Van Zeeland). Pinging past users Primefac and Moonriddengirl and also subject users Doc James, Anthony Bradbury and Drchriswilliams. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a more or less unreffed BLP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are plenty of News hits, they are all about her company and none of them give more than a passing mention of her (on top of "...said Van Zeeland"). The Dickinson Fellowship doesn't appear to be that notable (I actually found more pages on co-authors with Van Zeeland who were also Fellows than pages about her), and so I don't think she meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I'm tempted to !vote userfy, as it seems that the creator misunderstood the assignment given to them, but keeping an article on a non-notable person that will never be a Wikipedia page simply for a grade seems like false charity. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I took a look for references to her in books and articles, and added relevant citations. Her work on Autism and Anorexia is significant, and I've expanded that a bit. More could be done, but hopefully this helps to support this as a "keep". Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and thanks of the community to Mary Mark Ockerbloom for the improvements. — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient improvements made Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. I don't believe the subject's h-index ... quite rises to the usual level we require for PROF C1, but the Arnold book reference, the Science Daily coverage, and the publication record strike me as getting toward GNG. The article does have problems, several of the sources are warmed-over corporate press releases whose use should be kept in check only to document claims about what the company says about itself. --joe decker ^talk 18:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Addict[edit]

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

Article topic (a website) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (The founder was quoted in USA Today, but there's nothing about the website itself. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 03:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 03:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:37, 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 19:26, 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 12:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good coverage Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:35, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinh III[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 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 19:25, 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 12:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This gets plenty of coverage in guidebooks covering Da Lat, but usually a couple of paragraphs in the "Also worth seeing" section rather than a page or so among the main tourist attractions (several of which already have Wikipedia articles). English books sometimes refer to it as Bảo Đại's summer palace, to distinguish it from another residence of Bảo Đại in Da Lat (apparently known as Dinh I in Vietnamese) - the Da Lat Wikipedia article lists "The Palace of Bao Dai King", which could be either of them (they seem to get roughly equal treatment in guidebooks). I am completely (and genuinely) unsure about notability - apart from guidebooks, it seems to get one or two mentions in books about Bảo Đại and also as an example of French modernist architecture transplanted to Vietnam. However, chasing this further in GBooks seems either to end up with snippets or with books in Vietnamese. Of course, if kept, the article will need a fairly thorough rewrite. PWilkinson (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PWilkinson (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls (series 4)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as was a long running UK show and was notable in its time, I've managed to find ~~one source~~ a few sources [30][31][32] .... Most series-type articles here have poor sourcing but doesn't mean we should delete it ... We should improve it. –Davey2010^Talk 12:18, 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 19:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known show, no wp:before. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davey2010 —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:54, 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. joe decker ^talk 18:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 60 Minutes segments[edit]

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

There's nothing much here -- literally just one (1) entry. Perhaps a redirect or merge to the main article might be appropriate. — Cirt (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and a pretty poor one at that. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 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 19:25, 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 12:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —Swpb^talk 18:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Defaults to keep. I note the article is in much better shape than it was a month or two ago, well done to the editors involved for that. Jenks24 (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal radio shows[edit]

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

Almost wholly unsourced despite being cited as needing sources since 2011. Lack of sourcing or wikilinks means there is no demonstrated notability for 99% of this. - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to cut all the unsourced and un-wikilinked content so notability of what remains can be evaluated. - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't say that the body of the article was "almost wholly unsourced." Kinda stubby; but cites 3 sources, 2 of which appear to be pretty good quality. The problem with the article was the spammy, mostly unsourced, un wiki-linked list of "notable" examples. Any such article that starts with a definition of a genra followed by a list of examples attracts unsourced spam like this. For non paranormal examples take a look at (some historical versions of) unseen character, sitcom, and similar articles. The solution is to cut the spam, (as CorbieVreccan did) and keep the article on watchlists to prevent it from growing again. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've completely removed the list of "notable" examples (many of which were not-so-notable), and expanded the history some with another source I found. I would urge the nominator to re-evaluate the cleaned up article on a genera of programming. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I started cleanup after nominating it. If others want to continue improving the article I'm open to it staying. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:25, 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 12:49, 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. Biblioworm 01:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Viswanathan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR cannot find anthing except writing one book Am I A Hindu? . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 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 19:24, 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 12:49, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jari Ketomaa[edit]

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

Self-referenced Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

referenced now. Inwind (talk) 04:30, 26 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 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 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 12:49, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of demonyms for states in Nigeria[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet WP:GNG. It is not referenced, and I can't find any reliable source out there discussing denonyms of Nigerian states. Just checking through this, it seem more like a hoax. I have never heard anything like "Ogunian", "Kebbian", "Osunian", "Sokotonian" in my entire life!!!! As far as I can tell people from Ogun and Osun, are plainly called "Ogun people/man/woman" and "Osun people/man/woman" respectively. Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources to the article, if you are looking for the word "demonym" in news articles you may not find them. However, there are numerous places where "Abians" have been used to refer to the people of/from Abia State, the same thing goes for "Akwa Ibomites" which refers to people from Akwa Ibom State, "Anambrarian" for people of Anambra State, and so on. English dictionary says any word that is used to identify residents or natives of a particular place is called demonym. Therefore Abians, Akwa Ibomites, Anambrarians, Kebbians are all demonyms. Understood? ...I'm not a great teacher but I am sure I broke this one down for you. haha. Stanleytux (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: per WP:NLIST and obviously meet WP:GNG. I'm aware of the "Ogunian" per this book, Kwarans per Sahara Reporters, Lagosian per this but not all States of Nigeria have the claimed demonyms in the article. Controversial ones such as "Osunian" and "Sokotonia" among others should be referenced and if the reference cannot be provided, it should be removed. The appropriate title should be List of demonyms for some states in Nigeria but if we can verify the demonyms for all the states, then List of demonyms for states in Nigeria will be appropriate. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 26 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 19:23, 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 12:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:SALAT it might pass, but I'm not sure WP:NLIST applies, since this isn't about people, per se, but about the names of groups of people. WP:LISTGLOSSARY appears to be the more appropriate guideline in this case, since it is a list of terms. I was initially going to !vote "Keep", since it has been improved since the nomination, but per WP:SAL, but only 8 of the terms have references (so the rest could be challenged and deleted - which is what this AfD is doing), and in its current format it is more a simple listing of uncited dictionary terms. Getting back to WP:LISTGLOSSARY, the pertinent guideline would is this a "topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has it's own main article on Wikipedia." The entries are simple definitions, and not informative explorations of the terms; and none of the demonyms have their own article on Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:onel5969 concerns. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per One15969. Besides, I can hardly see any value in these kinds of lists, considering that each country/region/place already has a "demonym" entry in its infobox. I also think that people on average are more likely to look up a demonym in its respective region article, rather than in such a list. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Warner Concert Grand Suitcase[edit]

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

Article about a brand of record player, citing exactly no reliable source coverage to make it a notable brand of record player — the only "sources" here are a YouTube video and two eBay auctions, thus igniting the suspicion that the real intention here was to boost the eBay sales. (If I could definitively prove that, then I'd speedy this as a blatant advertisement — but I can't, so AFD it is.) Delete unless real references can be located. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no real references because it's from 1940 and the only thing to show that it a real record player is to make ebay references. I do not know why you think it to boost ebay sales why would i want to do that? Its not advertisement cause it a real record player that not being made no more and the brand is Stewart Warner so it is notable. Jdogmad (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References on Wikipedia have to be to reliable sources. They cannot be to eBay auctions or YouTube videos — if you cannot find reliable source coverage, then the thing just doesn't get to have an article. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a record player, like hundreds or thousands of others. This particular model doesn't appear to be notable in any way; it doesn't even rate a mention in Stewart-Warner. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 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 19:23, 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 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete for want of WP:RS. Do we really need an article on every model of record player, radio, and TV? that would be the implication of keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 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. Biblioworm 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Scooter Club[edit]

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

In terms of reliable sources, I can only find a single mention of this club in "trojan+scooter+club" this book and GBooks says it might be mentioned in "trojan+scooter+club" this one. That's not convincing evidence of notability. A web search turns up a website, Twitter account, some Facebook pages and some mentions on sites that I do not consider reliable sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better. Pinging tagger LilHelpa. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First impression was reply nn/delete because its a small local club, I thought give it a chance...looked on google and gnews on the off chance, but nothing of note. Szzuk (talk) 22:00, 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. Biblioworm 16:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling Inspector of Account[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this article's topic is notable. It surely exists, as the Indian Railways' website confirm, but I can't find third-party sources that discuss it in any detail. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of why this needs its own article. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) 17:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this job has unclear notability Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and restart later if a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Kaye (businessman)[edit]

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

This businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. He seems to have been an executive in a lot of redlinked or unlinked companies. Not seeing anything but PR releases about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as you won't believe this Clarityfiend but I was sweeping the random pages tonight and happened to slate this for deletion later. As for the article, I'm simply not seeing any better improvement. Pinging the only still active past user Skyerise. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 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 12:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with reasons for deletion. Does not appear to rise to the level of general notability. Skyerise (talk) 19:17, 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. Biblioworm 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of van Gogh[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable music group. I was only able to find one source (a local newspaper). Fails WP:BAND. - Mr X 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of van Gogh are a notable new musical ensemble. John Cate is a widely and regularly published (October 2015 CBS TV series NCIS and Zoo), Scarlet Rivera is a world-renowned violinist who recently performed at the United Nations and John Durrill is an internationally known songwriter (Cher's "Dark Lady", Merle Haggard's "Misery and Gin" among many others) and performer in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Because of these individual backgrounds, it is important to memorialize this new project created by the contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vangoghbrother (talk • contribs) 08:55, October 25, 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy later if needed as I simply see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 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 12:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This needs many more reliable sources and also the title is not using proper case. Tyler Mongrove (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aerokids[edit]

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

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

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

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

PROD without explanation. Concern was: "Fails to meet WP:CORP with no substantial coverage in RS". The claim to be "one of the largest Education organization" cannot be verified from any RS. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. The only reference provided in the article is a press release and my own searches simply turn up franchising directories and whatnot. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Financial Express (India) is a notable publication which covers the award of "Most Promising Pre-School Chain in India" to Aerokids Education Private Limited, though it appears not to be The Financial Express which made the award but Praxis Media Private Limited, and the paper is just printing a press release. Praxis Media is a marketing organisation, so it's hard to believe the award was anything other than a marketing exercise. Other than this, I too can find nothing to assert any kind of notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep The above mentioned issues have been addressed by linking more sources from independent media. And also please note that the award was issued based on the public survey and evaluation by praxis media team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.63.99.233 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27.63.99.233 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep a quick search finds independent sources confirming the notability claim winning the title "Most Promising preschool Chain" and pan India presence. In case the admin still finds any issues, kindly update the article and keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.234.194.254 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

223.234.194.254 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep This organization has received lot of coverage in local and national level medias. You can even check their presence in Google maps and search engines. Hence it is notable. Reference links will satisfy wikipedia's policy and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oviya344 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Oviya344 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sockwell[edit]

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

No evidence of noteability Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that having raced professionally in both Xfinity Series and Camping World Truck Series events, even if just once, he automatically meets WP:NMOTORSPORT. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 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 12:40, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Nikolayev[edit]

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

No independent sources are provided to prove this person's notability. The article in ru.wiki was deleted years ago, its author User:Анна Волкова (the same as in en.wiki) is proven to be Vadim Nikolaev's sockpuppet [33]. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply no better improvement although Books and browser found some links and Scholar? (Vadim S. Nikolayev) unless this can be better improved. Pinging interested user Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 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 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article in the beginning of August 2012, and in August 9 it was accepted by reviewer Gyan Gardevoir. Nobody didn’t present claims more than three years. So the attack of Andrey Romanenko (Андрей Романенко) is very strange.

Anyone who know Russian language may read in Mr. Romanenko’s note 1 that he requested in ru.wikipedia the check of me with the violation of the rules. Dmitry Rozhkov pointed on it and pointed concrete rule but the check-users didn’t want to listen him. Yet the discussion quickly finished after my posting (I wrote about the contradiction in two postings of one check-user).

Now Mr. Romanenko wrote that I’m an author of the article about Vadim Nikolayev in ru.wikipedia. It’s a mistake. An author of this article is Vladislav Skvortsov (I only want to restore the article, and Mr. Romanenko requested the check of me). Mr. Rozhkov wrote (see note of Andrey Romanenko) that Mr. Romanenko absurdly mixed Mr. Nikolayev and Mr. Skvortsov, knowing that these people are existing and existing «in common field of the activity – in the translation». Really, in the book William Shakespeare. Sonnets: The Anthology of Modern Translations (Mr. Nikolayev is one of two compilers) Sonnet 90 presented in six translations. One translation was made by Mr. Nikolayev, other – by Vladislav Skvortsov. But Mr. Romanenko claimed that Mr. Skvortsov is sockpuppet of Mr. Nikolayev. I think that you understood – I’m the same sockpuppet of Mr. Nikolayev as Vladislav Skvortsov.

Mr. Romanenko wrote that «no independent resourses are provided to prove this person’s notability». The article in ru.wikipedia has not been restored with the violation of the rules (oh, you don’t know Russian Wikipedia – Wikipedia in my mad land!). I wrote about it to the member, which accepted this decision, and pointed on the violation. He answered to me but he didn’t want to discuss about his violation, he didn’t write no word about it. He just showed me that the article in en.wikipedia (the article was already accepted) is (I apologize) shit for him.

I was the patroller in ru.wikipedia. , I’m an author of two «good» articles (with the star). Some members advised me: «Never conflict with Romanenko». I listened that Mr. Romanenko somehow hate Mr. Nikolayev, and I knew my risk when I decided to restore the article. They blocked me by absurd, defamatory reason.

In en.wikipedia I meet other atmosphere. Author of FIRST Russian encyclopedia about William Shakespeare (at the time, when Russian government almost don’t invest money into the science), one of two compilers of the book, whose copy is in the Library of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, have the notability here. If you read the text of the article, you’ll make sure in this notability.

Why Mr. Romanenko made his attack so late? I think that the members of ru.wikipedia, which know about the article in en.wikipedia, hid it from him. I think they understand – if the article about such person as Mr. Nikolayev absent in Russian Wikipedia, it is the shame.

I believe that the administrators of en.wikipedia, main Wikipedia of the world, will not delete the article about Vadim Nikolayev.

Sincerely. Анна Волкова (talk)

- I am not going to discuss this soap opera about poor Shakespeare scholars bullied with these terrible Russians. I am sysop at ru.wiki with ca. 80.000 edits [34] and kinda know how it works when you delete the article about some pretty self-promotional person and then for years face the claims about your off-line enmity towards him/her. Here, by the way, Mr. Nikolayev himself tells the story (in Russian, sorry) admitting that he had written the article about himself under a nickname. However, this is not the point. The point is that there is no serious proofs of notability of Mr. Nikolayev. His articles and translations are mostly self-published. His papers and articles are good enough to be briefly mentioned in a footnote (like here). His Shakespeare encyclopedia has no coverage in academic sources and got a single short review in a general media [35] saying that the book is irresponsible hack-work. So I guess there's no need to mislead English-speaking readership into believeing that there is so remarkable figure among Russian men of letters. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You live in Russia and you know that Russian government (as I wrote) almost don’t invest money into the science. It's not soap opera, alas. You know that Shakespeare Comittee of the Russian Academy of Sciences discussed Mr. Nikolayev's encyclopedia in the birthday of William Shakespeare (April 23, 2008) but you сlaim that his Shakespeare encyclopedia has no coverage in academic sources. Do you use that the site of Shakespeare Comittee now is closed (by financial problems), and my notes on it are gone? These notes have been tested earlier. You wrote that the enciclopedia "got a single short review in a general media". Do you know that general media give small information about scientific encyclopedia? And you know that Mr. Nikolayev read the reports on scientific conferention.

About the fact that Mr. Skvortsov (no Mr. Nikolayev) wrote the article in ru.wikipedia you may read higher. And you may read (with the help of my note 2) their translations of Shakespeare's sonnet 90. I'm sure that you know about the styles of the translation.

You refered on one fulsified article. I know the situation. The author of this article in little Internet resourse subscribed under the name of Vadim Nikolayev. Mr. Nikolayev calculated him and filed a lawsuit. Real author is the member of ru.wikipedia (I know his name but I'm not call it).

You are the administrator of ru.wikipedia. I can't find in it the article about electronic encyclopedia World of Shakespeare, about two other philological sites, which has been created by Nikolay V. Zakharov, scientific Secretary of Shakespeare Commitee of the Russian Academy of Sciences, doctor of philosophy, the academician. I can't find the article about Mr. Zakharov himself. Apparently, he also haven't the notability. Is it soap opera too? Анна Волкова (talk)

You should not blame Russian government for the fact that your hero Mr. Nikolayev is not a scientist: he has not got PhD, he does not belong to academia, he does not teach at a university, his Shakespeare encyclopedia is not a scientific edition (it is published by Eksmo, they never deal with any kind of science except the science of money counting). And, by the way, by insisting that the article published under the name of Nikolayev is not written by him, and by informing us about Nikolayev's lawsuits (no news about this lawsuit has been published) you admit in fact that you are here on behalf of Nikolayev himself (or rather that you are Nikolayev, as I believe). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without getting into all the drama, searches did not turn up enough to show this article meets the notability criteria, plain and simple. Perhaps there are sources in Cyrillic language papers that my search engines aren't showing, but until they can be used as references for this article, simply delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Romanenko, why do you report wrong information? You wrote that Mr. Nikolayev does not teach at a university. No, he is the graduate of Russian State Humanitarian University. And other... You don't know the information about him (I don't want to say that you lie), and the administrators of en.wikipedia can (or can't) believe you. Eksmo published (together with other publishing houses) scientific encyclopedia about Mikhail Bulgakov, scientific encyclopedia about Nikolay Gogol, scientific encyclopedia about Fyodor Dostoevsky. I can confirm it if this is necessary but it is clear - if the encyclopedia isn't scientific, Shakespeare Commitee of the Russian Academy never discussed it. Now Eksmo is main publishing house in Russia, and Eksmo published Mr. Nikolayev's historical novel. Viktor Porotnikov has been published in Eksmo some historical novels (I read his historical duologue and his other novel). And I can (oh!) find short article about Mr. Porotnikov in ru.wikipedia. But I also find the article about unfamous writer Tamara Alexeeva. She owns a factory. I can't find the notes in her biography.

You broke the rules in ru.wikipedia (it is a fact), and you do it here. You wrote that I am "here on behalf of Nikolayev himself" or rather I "am" Nikolayev, so you bring unproven accusations. Yes, I'm aсquainted with Mr. Nikolayev, and you must remember it. It is not the violation of the rules. I know from him about lawsuit (these news really has been published). I keep the rules of Wikipedia, and I'm not going to claim that you wrote fulsified article. But it is fact that after the beginning of lawsuit you wanted to delete this article. Most probably that it is a coincidence. I think that you knew about this article so late but I can be wrong in my assuptions. I wrote higher that I'm not call the name of real author.

Now I want to write the article about Nikolay Zakharov (I suspect that Russian Wikipedia will not wait it).

Onel5969, you can read on English about the book in the Library of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Анна Волкова (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content is irredeemably promotional in nature. No prejudice toward re-creating the article with proper sourcing and structure. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advantech Corporation[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable company as the best I found was this (almost at the bottom), this, this, this and finally this looks like another company, from Singapore; this was started by an SPA in December 2008 and it hasn't changed much since. Pinging Hmains, Mean as custard, Espresso Addict, DGG and Oo7565. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - reads like an add. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to stub - seems notable, but very promotional - remove all references to "solutions". . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. and permit re-creation. I think $1 billion companies are usually notable, but this should be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 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]

Pinging Deryck Chan, Ohconfucius, Eat me, I'm an azuki and Onel5969 who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Weak keep but would accept "delete and permit recreation". The subject is notable - listed in Taipei Exchange; subject of regular coverage in mainstream media in Taiwan about its technological innovation, e.g. its robots made the news twice in 2014 [36]; [37][38]; its "smart city" initiative in 2014 [39]; its latest medical venture made news in many media sources [40][41]. But I agree we should rewrite the article substantially and I personally haven't got time for that. Der yck C. 16:05, 3 November 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]

Keep but drastic rewrite, article is not fit in current state.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 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. joe decker ^talk 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxton Mini Press[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and pure advert by WP:SPA. None of the references have any substance. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Szzuk (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: Which of the Criteria for speedy deletion do you feel pertain to this article? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G11. Promotional page. Szzuk (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 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. Biblioworm 16:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Syafiq Ahmad[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. According to this he has only played in the Malaysia Premier League which is not a fully-professional league. No significant coverage, in fact very little coverage at all, I've struggled to find sources. Giant Snowman 11:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

Okay, Mr. Snowman. First of all, if the Malaysia Premier League was not a fully-professional league, then I want you to nominate for deletion of ALL the players and coach articles in the league. Second, if you couldn't find a source, google the player's name. Probably because he is not popular so he does not has much sources... And I expect you to nominate to delete ALL the recently made football player articles because they are all not popular and don't have much source. PS: I have placed a link to the sources I got. Third, Kedah FA will be playing in the Malaysia Super League next season. Which is a fully-professional league. So what is your say, Mr. Snowman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewkiivorox (talk • contribs)

There are other non-notable articles on Wikipedia? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. He might be notable in the future? WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 14:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mr. Snowman. I need you to leave this article alone for a few months, because he is a rising star in the league. He will have many more sources later in one or two years... So please Mr. GiantSnowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewkiivorox (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning in the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... That is funny, if that is so, why don't you nominate to delete all the second division player articles out there? And second, for god's sake his team will play in a fully-professional league next season.

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. COmments above that he's bound to be notable in time are pure WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be recreated if / when he actually satisfies a guideline. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can't you wait until next season? Deleting this page solves nothing if they will play in a fully-professional league next season. You deleted it, I have to recreate it next season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewkiivorox (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 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) 23:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - While presently failing WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, I note that Kedah FA will be promoted to Malaysia Super League next season. If the subject is still attached to the club and plays next season, then he would meet WP:NFOOTY, but we cannot keep the article in mainspace due to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Userfying will both remove the article from mainspace while allowing Hewkiivorox to maintain and update it until it meets the requirements to be added to mainspace. If, however, the subject is not notable after a period of time, then Hewkiivorox is always free to add {{db-u1}} to the draft. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:35, 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. Biblioworm 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expendable (film)[edit]

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

Prodded and then restored on the basis of the single reference to Rowan's book. I note that Rowan's book is from Lulu.com, a self-publishing platform so whether it is a reliable source is questionable. Otherwise the source only provides a plot summary and a brief unexplained "the film met much public controversy" statement. This a short 7 minute independent film with no real evidence that it passes WP:MOVIE. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Delete for failure to meet WP:NF. It can apparently be watched but has made no splash at all. Lacking any sort of independent critical response or coverage, notability is failed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really non-notable, apparently a student film. Unlike most articles of this type, though, it doesn't even really try to assert notability, with the closest attempt being the rather bizarre statement that "some believe it rivals the vast majority of films made by students with similar breadths of experience," which I assume actually means they didn't fail the assignment. Even the director quote can't manage more than "pretty decent", which is faint praise indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He Pai Noa (song)[edit]

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

Song from non-notable musician. No coverage outside of streaming services, forums or listings. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for stated reasons above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't establish notability NealeFamily (talk) 23:02, 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. Biblioworm 16:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of rock songs[edit]

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

Impossibly broad list scope, taking the article title at face value. The lede's suggestion that this article is in fact the top rock songs as sorted by number of Last FM listeners seems arbitrary, only WP:PRIMARY-sourceable and will change over time. McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unsourced trivial list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. clpo13_(talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this simply too wide scale albeit any actual visitors and searches. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 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 16:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Blackbourn[edit]

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

Well written article, but fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 10:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 10:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX. And not particularly well written! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak delete Writing style doesn't matter but I think he does meet WP:NBOX with respect to his national amateur championship. New Zealand just squeaks in as a viable country but it is on the list.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- New Zealand clocks in with a single bronze medal at the World Amateur Boxing Championships. I don't think amateur champions from Ghana, Costa Rica and Pakistan should also be considered notable. It is true that WP:NBOX should technically let it slide, but the guideline are way too loose and we shouldn't give a fringe article like this leeway. JTtheOG (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree I modified my vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think JTtheOG is right, both about the boxing guidelines and that even under those generous guidelines, NZ barely qualifies. At this time I don't see that Blackbourn meets WP:GNG or is a notable boxer. This seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio César Ávalos, where barely meeting the boxing guidelines was deemed insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer and sources do not show signficiant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 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. Biblioworm 16:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maryniak[edit]

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

Does not seem to correspond to the admitted criteria: The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Kowalewska in 2012 for similar issues). Dont even ask (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches turn up no evidence of notability (noting there is a Poznan-based marketing professor of the same name). Fails WP:ARTIST and broader WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like AllyD, I could not find any secondary sources for this article by looking for "Maryniak+genart" in the usual places. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:04, 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 speedy deletion (A7) (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quin Akila[edit]

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

A few links with a few words, no categories. 333 -blue 07:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tagged this for speedy deletion since it obviously fails WP:BIO. I'm not sure why the template was removed and it was nominated for deletion instead. The related article, Jack Ptolemy, was already deleted. APK whisper in my ear 07:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy A7): No claim to notability made in the article and none found from searches. I've retagged as CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 12:05, 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 02:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Pihal[edit]

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

Questionably notable as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and I'm not seeing anything to suggest better and obvious attention and improvement. Pinging Derek R Bullamore and author Chander. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this

The Times of India - [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]

Filmibeat [49], [50], [51], [52]

India TV, [53]

Mid Day [54], [55], [56], [57]

~~Zee News [58] - Ch an der 16:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)~~ per WP:SOCKSTRIKE §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:55, 8 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! 16:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of throwing a bund of links you need to tell how the subject meets WP's notability guideline. You posted similar link-list on another AfD. Also, Filmibeat is not RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:12, 23 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 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, per a review of news media sources posted above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @SwisterTwister: Do you feel that the sources presented in this discussion demonstrate notability for the subject? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely although the sourcing is not as fruitful as it could be. Although this may be close to closing, I'll keep this open if others want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At least one user has been blocked for paid editing. I'd suggest more scrutiny by experienced editors. slakr^\ talk / 03:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:19, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 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 speedy keep: Withdrawal with no delete comments. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Mean Old Yesterday[edit]

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

Article's subject does not appear to qualify as notable. References include only paid reviews (Kirkus), evidence of existence (Google), or distributors' summaries (P. Weekly, S. & S.), not critical discussion of the book's content by bona fide reliable independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 06:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Article now has evidence of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sourcing. Much better! KDS4444^Talk 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has reliable sources, new references added, the book has been reviewed by such notable publications as The Boston Globe, the Bangkok Post and Publishers Weekly. All very notable sources. Neptune's Trident (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casper's Scare School (TV series)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show has aired on Cartoon Network, a national television network. I think that is enough for an article on Wikipedia. Prhdbt [talk] 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need independent reports? Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources?Rathfelder (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For TV show articles, you only need to prove that a TV show a) actually exists, and b) has aired on a television network. This show has done both, and there are sources backing this up. See WP:AFDP#Broadcast media and WP:TVSHOW for more details. Prhdbt [talk] 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 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 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fer Sure[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG/WP:GNG as there appears to be no published reliable sources about the song itself. Brycehughes (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found Arizona press of dubious independence, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. --joe decker ^talk 18:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G7. Biblioworm 17:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PP Reddy[edit]

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

Notability KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 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 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Martino[edit]

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

does not meet GNG as actor/director. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Мандичка, just to inform... meeting WP:CREATIVE as a screenwriter, producer, or director requires his work receive coverage, not he. And meeting WP:ENT as an actor, requires his roles be significant in notable works. Neither mandates that he himself meet [[WP:GNG] else the applicable SNGs could be deleted or rendered historic. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Are you arguing that he meets GNG at WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT? I don't believe he does. It appears that he's done some straight-to-video movies and been mainly an extra as an actor based on his credits. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Мандичка: Nope, just addressing your deletion rational. While the GNG is fine, it is not a absolute mandated requirement for actors or directors/producers/screenwriters who may for some reason choose to keep a low media profile. But if someone determines that works lacking Wikipedia articles with which he has creative input as director or writer or producer have themselves been the recipient of critical commentary or analysis, then he might slide in under an SNG even with a failure of GNG. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: When I said he doesn't meet GNG as actor/director it should have been obvious I was referring to the individual creative standards, and I don't see anybody who is confused or needs special guidance about what protocols to follow. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 23 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! 00:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

possible weak Keep. Director of two mainstream films, even if both of them are considered of no real merit. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: FYI these were not mainstream films released in the theater, but straight to video. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he knows that... but it's not the issue, as many direct-to-video projects can and have been determined as notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both of his directing gigs are of films of questionable notability (even though they both have articles, both are very sparsely sourced). One of them is a definite direct to video, and the other one very well might be (the production company was primarily direct to video). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to onel5969: Just to inform, in considering WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT... he has written, produced, or directed or acted in far more than just "two" projects. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of his other films are notable, and most of his acting credits are as extras (a few of which are not even credited). He just doesn't meet notability any way you look at it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Мандичка: As Wikipedia is far from complete, not having an article here does not make a film or television project automatically non-notable. He has directed or produced or written some blue-linked projects, and there may be suitable sources for some others. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're arguing this hypothetically. We're here to determine notability, so claiming "there may be suitable sources" out there contributes nothing to the discussion. Either they're are or they're aren't. Nobody said anything about his projects having articles or argued WP is complete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sun rise tomorrow? Probably... but until it does it remains a (high probability) hypothetical (chuckle). And yes, if someone finds that his works not written of here have suitable notability, we could argue WP:CREATIVE. I am not doing that now, and as I am about to head out to work, I will not be doing it (today). But if someone else thinks it worth doing before I return, fine. If not, then not. But it hurts nothing to give someone the idea to look, as there is time yet, and I cannot and will not declare something non-notable because of assumptions to the negative. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:32, 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. Article currently fails to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Holm[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvement especially given its current version and the best I found was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, and unsourced. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 23 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 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to SwisterTwister and LaMona but this is a keep as it meets WP:GNG (and WP:ANYBIO?) as I have found these: two reviews from Publishers Weekly [59] - "With a quirky protagonist who likes bugs and her spunky daughter who keeps a rat, Holm has fashioned a charming urban tale of heartbreak and survival.", [60] - "This addition to the crowded memoir shelves offers an entertaining but unsurprising look ... The author is at her best depicting the strong, healthy relationship with her kindhearted fiancé, which will assure readers that Holm has as good a chance as anyone can to make a marriage work, long after the wedding hoopla is over." and [61] - one from Kirkus Reviews - "Awfully trite, but distinguished by delicious, sharply observed scenes of San Francisco’s various neighborhoods and inimitable seasons.", also this on her musical - [62] - "In many ways, it's a surprising topic for her: it's a play about a cat lady whose attempts at online dating are foiled by a persnickety cat. Holm is married, has never used Internet dating sites and is incredibly allergic to cats." and this from new york times books in brief. [63] - "She can also be humorous and touching as she probes everyday fears about raising a teenager, being alone or committing herself to a partner for life." and this amazon page show a Booklist review (sorry, i don't have access to booklist)[64] - "Recent brides or brides-to-be will probably feel like Holm has been reading their diaries, but the funny, anecdotal story of one woman's preparation for marriage will appeal to more than just the recently engaged or wed." Coolabahapple (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is getting close to relisting, I'll ping interested subject users Tokyogirl79 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In spite of the reviews that Coolabahapple found, I'm still seeing a very minor author who publishes with small, minor presses. Unless we decide that everyone who publishes a book or three gets a WP page, then this one doesn't make it. We've had this discussion before, but if your only reviews are in the magazines that exist to review not as criticism but as purchasing guides, then I don't see notability. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (a couple actually, with a healthy dose of sarcasm), I don't see where WP:GNG precludes "a very minor author", a matter of opinion, as long as the topic meets the guidelines; ditto "small, minor presses", oh well, there goes all the self published/ print on demand authors/books. talking about WP:NBOOK which needs two or more non-trivial reviews, from the above reviews I found, two of her books could in theory have their own articles, unless kirkus and PW are now deemed not useable for notability, I haven't seen any consensus for this on nbook's talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional almost to the point of G11. Various promotional devices: the publications list has a separate line for the hardbound and paperback, which we do not usually do. The article talks about "her most recent novel"--but there's only one published novel. There a sentence about the totally non notable activities before she became a writer. there's a line about where her daughter goes to college. There's information about when her radio show can be heard and on what channel. There's an external link to her playlists on the show. She's referred to in the article by her first name alone, which is never appropriate for an encyclopedia except for some genres of entertainers. She isslightly notable, and a case could be made for a proper article.Given all the notable people that don't have articles in WP and need one, it's folly to work on articles for the minor authors who are here to get publicity for their work. I can see a case for keeping them if its done exactly right, I can't see a case for fixing the ones inserted both written wrongly, and for the wrong purposes. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that there are many notable people who don't have articles written in Wiki, I see no reason to delete this one if she's been written up in Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus as found by Coolabahapple. Further, with the state the article is in now it's practically a blank slate. As editors we don't decide how great a writer is (that would be original research), we look to see if there are RS and if their work is reviewed in a non-trivial way. It shouldn't matter how it was published. Further, I would add that even if you look at certain mags as "purchasing guides" that's still criticism. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:21, 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. Biblioworm 16:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malick Bowens[edit]

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

This article has continuously failed to pass WP:GNG since June 2013. It only relies on this one source, but its not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Believe me, I've tried everywhere on searching for any information about Bowens from reliable sources to no avail. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks adequate evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:35, 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. Keep !votes failed to provide proper policy based reasons. Page views are not part of the notability criteria. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Mohammad Najib Ur Rehman[edit]

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

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

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

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

BLP of a head of an unremarkable religious group, entirely self-sourced and/or promotional (Sultan ul Faqr Publications, now deleted, including sultan-ul-faqr.com website, are owned by the group). kashmiri ^TALK 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are significant notability and reliable sources as well as independent sources for the article to exist.Markangle11 (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a principal contributor to the article, you are expected to abstain from !voting. kashmiri ^TALK 00:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's bullshit, xe's encouraged to comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I found a few links at Books but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Per WP:NPOV, which states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", this article is perfectly acceptable and meets the criteria for neutral point of view. I see no sign of promotion especially because it uses impartial tone and cites sources apart from primary which are verifiable under WP:V such as this[65], this[66], this[67], etc. User:Remi143 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think person seems notable. Article got mammoth 15,000 views on 21st October, daily this article is getting around 1,000 views. Though number of views is not criteria to Keep article still so many people reading and searching about him so he is notable. It is not article about film or song or porn to get unnecessary large views, it is article about religious person. Article does have many sources, still we may need Urdu language sources to further establish his notability. He is shaikh of one sect of Islam, so he is notable. --Human3015^TALK 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The stats are somehow unusual - a few related articles also got incomparably more hits on 22 and 23 October.[68], [69], Not sure whether that's related to some sudden public interest in the topics. kashmiri ^TALK 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to add that the article started to continously attract ~1000 views/day on 2 September and even ~6000/day after 4 November. August seems pretty empty, apart from the occasional visitor. Well-known articles like Muhammad and Ali usually only result in 5k-6k and ~1200 views a day respectively. I have a feeling that the suspicious view stats for Najib-ur-Rehman are manipulated by bots. By the way, 23/24 October coincided with the Ashura holiday. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As the creator of the article i would like to clarify that special care was taken to provide a neutral and encyclopedic view of the biography. The article accounts for a lot of viewership [70]. Provided in the article are all facts accompanied with sources outside of the directly related websites to ensure that content is based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samm.jutt (talk • contribs) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nope, that's mostly religious blah blah. Who cares about hour of birth or weekday of birth? Describing subject's dreams or unsubstantiated tales from childhood is also non-encyclopaedic and important only for an ardent devotee, not anyone else. The article is full of Urdu and Arabic titles of no relevance or explanation. Peacock terms are extremely annoying ("best", "most famous", "most successful"). Sources are nearly exclusively to the guy's own books. The problem is, if you take away what's wrong, nothing will remain. Hence, delete or at best userfy until rewritten in accordance with MOS:BLP. kashmiri ^TALK 12:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the three linked by Remi, second is a "book" taken from Wikipedia, 1 and 3 are variations of the same fawning adoration posted on multiple non reliable sources with no sign of Abdur Rehman, Lahore being an independent expert. Stats are interesting but not a sign of notability. Not all sects are worthy of the same coverage Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarwari Qadiri. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article has section copied straight from those linked pages mentioned above so may need to be deleted as a copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:I see that WP:N has already been met after looking at this 15,000 views so no issues there. The 2 sources are WP:RS because both are known websites WP:Third-party sources referenced in many other Wikipedia articles as their notability is higher and per the policy are known for "peer review and fact-checking". I see published books cited in the article as well "entirely independent of the subject being covered" such as "Sarwari Qadiri Order. India: General Books LLC. ISBN 9781158473861." and "Attar, Farid al-Din. Muslim Saints and Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat Al-Auliya’ ('Memorial of the Saints'). Translated by A.J. Arberry. London, England.: Penguin (Non-Classics), 1990. ISBN 0-14-019264-6". Also, the discussion here isnt about sects so doesnt matter. The biographical article stands WP:V. Few words maybe paraphrased to make the article strictly encyclopedic but that is not the criteria for AfD per WP:Deletion policy.JugniSQ (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock of shit. WP:N makes no mention of views, see WP:POPULARPAGE. Any farcical attempt to claim the wordpress powered saintsofislam as a reliable source is quickly kaboshed by a look at their disclaimer, "This site contains copyrighted material contributed by users". Similarly a look at hamariweb will show it is also not a reliable source. The author of that piece is a user, the site itslef is run by a marketing firm. The Sarwari Qadiri Order book is just a collection of Wikipedia articles (catorgorised as "Computers › Programming Languages › General" so clearly the "editors" haven't even read it) so not a reliable source. The Muslim Saints and Mystics book was published in 1990, (well before this guy became "Shaikh", before he even started his "search for divine truth") and is used to verify a quote about someone else entirely. It has no coverage of this guy. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being uncivil to make your point does not work at Wikipedia. You may as well read that yourself. In this era, the higher the number of views of a particular website or page, the higher is its ranking it terms of its popularity. This is the criteria for notability which explains why "google search" is listed amongst find sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) in every Wikipedia deletion discussion to check whether the article meets WP:V. Most Wikipedia editors heavily rely upon using "google search" to reference articles. So first clarify yourself as to the criteria of judging the international popularity and notability standards. Hence, undoubtedly the article stands WP:N. Note that your foul language violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. You must "avoid profane and offensive language" and “participate in a respectful way” in discussions especially those related to religion. You are strongly recommended to "strike out your uncivil comment, or re-word it neutrally'".JugniSQ (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I need to point out that accounts: User:Remi143, User:Markangle11 and User:samm.jutt all keep promoting this same religious group headed by Sultan Mohammad Najib Ur Rehman, they all have edited the same articles in precisely the same way, spamming with links to the group's publications and website.[71] [72] [73]. Meatpuppetry comes to mind, so I'd be cautious when counting "keep" !votes here. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 10:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Use WP:Noticeboards for that because this information is irrelevant to judge the criteria for an article to stand WP:V. AfD decisions are taken purely on the basis of valid reasoning per Wikipedia policies. Let the admin handle it. JugniSQ (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even searching for the Arabic-script name results in a meager 24 hits, after Google had "omitted some entries very similar to the 24 already displayed." None of them would qualify as WP:RS by the way. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: This is irrelevant because the Arabic Google search has no relevance here. As explained above, the international google is the standard search engine to decide the notability of the subject and reliability of sources. This is English Wikipedia and must not be limited to one Arabic search. The article already establishes more than 4 independent reliable sources. It is useless to !vote based on irrelevant assumptions.JugniSQ (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of all sources mentioned in the article

Sarwari Qadiri Order. India: General Books LLC. ISBN 9781158473861. Not RS: Books LLC gets all its information from Wiki
"Sultan ul Faqr". Primary source: developed by the primary source Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr
"Famous Personalities". Not RS: Hamariweb is based on user-submitted articles
"Khadim Sultan ul Faqr Website". Primary source: developed by the primary source Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr
"Saints of Islam(Sultan Mohammad Najib ur Rehman)". Not RS: "This site contains copyrighted material contributed by users" and Wordpress blog in disguise
"Sultan-ul-Faqr VI". Not RS: "This site contains copyrighted material contributed by users" and Wordpress blog in disguise
"Biography of Sultan Mohammad Asghar Ali". Primary source: developed by the primary source Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr
"Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr". Primary source: affiliated organisation Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr
"Khadim Sultan ul Faqr Spiritual lineag". Not RS: Hamariweb is based on user-submitted articles
"Spiritual title "Sultan Mohammad"". Primary source: developed by the primary source Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr
"Khadim Sultan ul Faqr". Dead link and likely Primary source
"About Sultan ul Faqr VI". Primary source: developed by the primary source Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr:
Attar, Farid al-Din. Muslim Saints and Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat Al-Auliya’ ('Memorial of the Saints'). Translated by A.J. Arberry. London, England.: Penguin (Non-Classics), 1990. ISBN 0-14-019264-6. Does not mention SMNUR
Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman. Shams-ul-Fuqara: An encyclopedia of the teachings of Sultan-ul-Arifeen Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Bahoo. Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications. ISBN 978-969-9795-04-6. Primary source: written by SMNUR.
Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman. Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings. Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications. ISBN 978-9-699-79518-3. Primary source: written by SMNUR.
"Mujtaba Akhir Zamani". Not RS: Hamariweb is based on user-submitted articles
Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman. Mujtaba Akhar Zamani:Spiritual Guides of Sarwari Qadri Order. Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications. ISBN 978-969-9795-07-7. Primary source
"Haqeeqat-Ism-e-Allah Zaat". Primary source: "Written by Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman Madzillah-ul-Aqdus, the 31st Shaikh of Sarwari Qadri Order www.sultan-bahoo.com "
"Murshad Kamil Akmal written by Sultan Mohammad Najib ur Rehman". Primary source: by www.sultan-bahoo.com which was developed by the primary source Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr
Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman. Haqeeqat-e-Mohammadia. ISBN 978-969-9795-05-3. Primary source: written by SMNUR and published by affiliated publisher.
Mohammad Najib ur Rehman, Hazrat Sakhi Sultan. Risala Roohi:The Book of Soul. Sultan ul Faqr Publications Regd. ISBN 9789699795039. Primary source: published by affiliated publisher.

I've put way too much effort in such an insignificant subject, but it had to be done. None of these sources are usable in determining notability and thus this biography article fails WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) and should be deleted. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: meaty slakr^\ talk / 03:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HyperGaruda's analysis of the sources is correct, and I cannot find any reliable sources to replace them with a GBooks or DDG search. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NPOV. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Being an expert Wikipedian in Islamic issues, verify, I have taken out time for this article and done thorough research so the article may reach a consensus. “Sultan Mohammad Najib ur Rehman” is a writer of Sufism, his books-primarily focused on the teachings of South Asian saints. He is from Pakistan and is commonly known by his title “Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr” such as here[74] and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). In 2008, when Pakistan was on the peak of terrorism, he created an organization and named it Tehreek Dawat e Faqr[75] in an effort to spread the teachings of Islam. This system and its method of instruction is quite modern and appeals mostly to the youth. According to Wikipedia’s policy, WP:SCHOLAR, which states that “Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study” the subject of the article does meet notability criteria cited in WP:GNG. What initially looked like any other sect of Islam, turned out to be a systematic organization focused on modern-day Sufism.[76]. He an Urdu writer but some of his books have already been translated into English such as this[77] and this[78]. Per WP:AUTHOR, which states “should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.” In modern Islamic Sufism writings, this person is significant enough to have an article at Wikipedia.

p.s. In response to the comment of QVVERTYVS above, Googlebooks does provide a list of sources such as this [79], this[80], this [81], this[82], this[83], this[84], [85], this[86], this[87], this[88], etc. and per WP:NPOV, the article states obvious facts about birth, life, career, books, instead of opinions. Pixarh (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified that you've added your own username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Expert Wikipedians in Islamic issues. I'm not too impressed by that, if you don't mind. Nor am I very impressed by your citing WP policy without any proof; your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry but I am not here to impress but to discuss Qwertyus! And my answer is based on much research all supported by Wikipedia policies. If "ilikeit" worked, AfD discussions, in general, wouldnt have been taking place at all.Pixarh (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pixarh: I have checked every source you've mentioned above. None of them are independent of the subject, since they are written/published by either "Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman Madzillah-ul-Aqdus" or affiliated persons and organisations like "Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr". All the policies you've mentioned also demand that "reliable, independent sources" are needed when applying the criteria. Since there is not even a single reliable source that is independent of Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman, this article fails the fundamental notability guideline. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already explained in detail as to why the subject of the article is fundamentally notable and why the article should be kept per Wikipedia's policies. There is no need for further discussion from my part. Pixarh (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As per Human3015 and others above stating that it is notable and a useful part of the wikipedia. RailwayScientist (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: this article seems like one of several connected to a deletion spree, where each of the AfDs saw many sock-/meatpuppets related to this investigation. Each article of this series of deletions was problematically (read: primary) sourced with references to Sultan-ul-Faqr or its affiliated organisation Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr, without any notability based on third-party sources. The deletions include this, this, this, this and probably more AfDs having resulted in "delete". - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, this, this and this. All are titles of publications by the same niche publisher affiliated with a faith group in a Pakistani city. kashmiri ^TALK 20:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of the unproven claims, the article has significant notability sources to exist.Markangle11 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Sandtorv[edit]

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

The article, whose details largely are not based on the given sources, gives no indication that Sandtorv meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. There's only one reliable source giving some details, a single piece of local news. That's not enough for an encyclopedia article, and a Google News search didn't find anything further. The tone is unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Just before the PROD went up I did a similar search (with the intent to AfD) and found nothing more than brief mentions and name-drops. Primefac (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote per the comment by NewYorkActuary below. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as her name particularly found some links at News but only a few and there's not much else to suggest better improvement and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this remarkable singer and electronica artist, has a series of releaces and performanses internationally with her solo project "Pieces Of Solitude" with impro guitarist John Russell and bands like "Morning Has Ocurred", awarded the Norwegian 2012 "Jazz i sikte" talen award, Når jazzen er målet (in Norwegian) in Bergens Tidende - http://www.bt.no/kultur/Nar-jazzen-er-malet-2686163.html, and her duo project "The Jist" with the inventive guitarist Torgeir Hovden Standal received good review and 4 stars in All About Jazz for their album The Jist. The Jist: The Jist (2014) - http://www.allaboutjazz.com/the-jist-the-jist-va-fongool-review-by-eyal-hareuveni.php. She performed a duoproject in 2015 together with the British multi instrumentalist Steve Beresford at the Blow Out! festival in Oslo, Norway.Jazz In Oslo: BLOW OUT! FESTIVAL 2015 – MATINÉ - http://www.jazzinoslo.no/kalender/2015-08?. As front singer of the band Morning Has Occurred including with Marte Eberson, touring in Japan and Europe (2014). Ålesunder på 2014-turnéer i Japan og Europa (in Norwegian) - http://www.nyttiuka.no/default.aspx?menu=617&id=53865. They also released their self titeled debut album in 2014. They has received good reviews for performances at Norwegian jazz festivals like Midtsommejazz, Nattjazz, Vossajazz, Maijazz, Anjazz, and Balejazz. Morning Has Occurred m/Ålesund Strykerkvartett (in Norwegian) - http://jazzinorge.no/arrangement/morning-has-occurred-malesund-strykekvartett-2. Knuand (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fronting her project "Quiet Songs" she performed at the 2015 JugendJazz festival in her hometown Ålesund - http://jazzinorge.no/arrangement/jugendjazz-natalie-sandtorv-quiet-songs-holum-trio, where she also presented the quartet Rypdal/Sandtorv/Winter/Morland + OL'burger Beats with Jacop Rypdal, the upcomming star guitarist son of Terje Rypdal - http://jazzinorge.no/arrangement/jugendjazz-premiere-rypdalsandtorvwinthermorland-ol-burger-beats. Knuand (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2013 Natalie Sandtorv did a solo project for voice and electronics that was presented at Festspillene i Bergen, where she also presented a children's concert for the music festival. http://jazzinorge.no/intervju/hva-skjer-natalie-sandtorv - Hva skjer, Natalie Sandtorv? (in Norwegian) - JazzINorge.no Knuand (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With Morning Has Ocurrwed at Balejazz 2013. Årets Balejazz er godt i gang (in Norwegian) - NRK - http://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/sja-bileta-fra-balejazz-1.11023170
- Natalie Sandtorv stands behind the concert series Playdate in Bergen and Jugend Jazz in Ålesund. Ny konsertserie i Ålesund (in Norwegian) - http://jazzinorge.no/2015/06/29/ny-konsertserie-i-alesund - JazzINorge.no. Knuand (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Natalie Sandtorv performed “Quiet Songs” at The Norwegian National Jazz Scene 2015: Vakker Høstlyd (in Norwegian) - Aftenposten - https://kundeportal.aftenposten.no/fordeler/tilbud/ny-musikk-og-fantastiske-gjengangere. Knuand (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jist at the 2015 London Jazz festival: " ... Their sound hints at music, and the radically fragmented vocals, all executed live via electronics, hint at oblique cut-up narratives. On record their titles have a running formula: “The Jist of...” My favourites are “The Jist of Being In Between Jobs” and “The Jist of Being Rejected at Watergate”. This gag could and surely should go on forever. You could easily make a sitcom out of experimental music, though I suppose noone would believe it." FESTIVAL REPORT: Day One of the 2015 Match & Fuse Festival in Warsaw - http://www.londonjazznews.com/2015/06/festival-report-day-one-of-2015-match.html - LondonJazzNews.com, and 12 O'Clock Track: 'The Jist of Being in Between Jobs,' mind-melting Norwegian improv - http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2014/05/28/12-oclock-track-the-jist-of-being-in-between-jobs-mind-melting-norwegian-improv Knuand (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I also note that the unsigned posts are from User:Knuand, the author of the subject article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC) - changing vote, see below. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- What about: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/the-jist-the-jist-va-fongool-review-by-eyal-hareuveni.php, http://www.bt.no/kultur/Nar-jazzen-er-malet-2686163.html, http://jazzinorge.no/arrangement/morning-has-occurred-malesund-strykekvartett-2, http://jazzinorge.no/arrangement/jugendjazz-premiere-rypdalsandtorvwinthermorland-ol-burger-beats, and http://jazzinorge.no/intervju/hva-skjer-natalie-sandtorv? Knuand (talk) 23:29, 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 01:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- "Natalie Sandtorv: vocals, waterphone, harmonium, electronics. Sandtorv is a great improvisor who is currently living in Berlin. She has played mandagsklubben before but never solo!! Come and see this great vocalist take it out all by herself" - http://jazz.dk/en/cphjazz/concerts/15381/ Knuand (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandtorv touring in Japan and Europe in 2014 (in Norwegian) - http://www.nyttiuka.no/default.aspx?menu=617&id=53865 Knuand (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- London Jazz News: "The Jist at Match&Fuse 2015 in Warsaw - If ACRE veered toward abstraction, Norwegian duo The Jist are basically 'sound art'. Natalie Sandtorv (vocals/Roland SP-404SX) is a Game Of Thrones Diamanda Galas with a battle shriek to go, and Torgeir Hovden Standal (guitar) managed to make the whole venue literally rattle with just a guitar going through a volume pedal and a TC Electronics Mojomojo with some crocodile clips. At times they sound like a dying computer picking through the memory of old songs while it's being switched off. Their sound hints at music, and the radically fragmented vocals, all executed live via electronics, hint at oblique cut-up narratives. On record their titles have a running formula: “The Jist of...” My favourites are “The Jist of Being In Between Jobs” and “The Jist of Being Rejected at Watergate”. This gag could and surely should go on forever. You could easily make a sitcom out of experimental music, though I suppose noone would believe it." FESTIVAL REPORT: Day One of the 2015 Match & Fuse Festival in Warsaw - http://www.londonjazznews.com/2015/06/festival-report-day-one-of-2015-match.html Knuand (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has toured Poland, Norway, and Germany, this passes WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be enough out there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that's what it comes down to -- whether the cites offered by User:Knuand are enough. I'm counting fourteen cites on this page (not counting the duplicate listings). I concede that the AllAboutJazz cite offers an in-depth look at an album by a group to which Sandtorv belongs. The JannInNorge cites are mostly concert listings with short press-release types of descriptions. Unless I missed something, the NRK cite is just a photo of her on stage in a group performance. The Jazz.dk cite is nothing more than a listing of group members. The Jazz in Oslo cite just gives Sandtorv a passing mention of her performance with Beresford. Most of the rest, although not offering anything more substantive, raise an additional issue -- they are about the group Morning Has Occurred, which already has its own article here. The MusicBio guidelines are quite clear in stating that notability is not inherited. And yet, much of what User:Knuand presents to us is intended to imply notability based on Sandtorv's membership in Morning Has Occured. And finally, nothing in these cites gives us any substantial information about tours. At best, some of the sources make passing reference to touring Europe and Asia, but there are no details regarding when, how many shows, what size venues, etc. In all, User:Knuand has not made a compelling case for a stand-alone article. Instead, I suggest that that the page could be turned into a redirect to Morning Has Occurred. What does everyone think about that? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with a redirect. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I think redirect is a poor idea. The AllAboutJazz cite is not merely on a band to wich Sandtorv belongs. It is about the duo album The Jist, where Sandtorv is prime partner together with guitarist Torgeir Hovden Standal. The record had a "small part of the hours of material recorded in two days in Bergen with John Hegre, known as a member in the noise duo Jazkamer (with Lasse Marhaug who contributed his uncompromising approach to the sound of many Va Fongool releases} and guitarist in the metal trio Noxagt. Hegre captured faithfully the raw, intense and brutal sound of The Jist. As on other releases of Va Fongool, the design of the impressive cover was given to young promising artist, Henrik Koppen." When the Jazz I Norge articles is concerned, this is an organ for the Norwegian Jazz Federation "What happens, Natalie Sandtorv?" (my translation). This is a feature article focusing on many of her projects. She states "I just finished a split solo tour together with drummer Ole Mofjell in March. We played four concerts in Krakow and Berlin, in addition to concerts in Norway. Solo project for voice and electronics is something I shall also present among others at this year's Festspillene i Bergen. In addition there is a lot of work with my quartet Morning Has Occurred, which in May will be out on tour with Karl Seglem, organized by the Norwegian Jazz Federation, and the Western Norwegian Jazz Centre. It's going to be incredibly nice! We play a mixture of their own and Seglem's compositions, using both bukkehorn, hand pump organ and water phone." (my translation) - http://jazzinorge.no/intervju/hva-skjer-natalie-sandtorv. The other Jazz I Norge article is concerning the new concert seris in Ålesund, Jugendjazz, initiated 2015 by Natalie Sandtorv. "Jugendjazz wish to present the width which exist in today's jazz music, and this year the emphasis is on melodic jazz, jazzy hip hop, standard and modern indie jazz." (my translation) Sandtorv contributes with the quartet project Rypdal/Sandtorv/Morland/Winther where upcoming star guitarist Jakob Fagerlund Rypdal, son of guitar legend Terje Rypdal, in addition to her solo project Quiet Song - http://www.zitty.de/natalie-sandtorv-quiet-songs-modern-vocal-jazz.html. Knuand (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. Knuand (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per NewYorkActuary's analysis. After I voted delete, Knuand listed 5 cites as if they showed notability. The first is about the band, in which she is mentioned, hardly in-depth. Second is even a more inconsequential mention. Third, again about the band, and not even that in-depth about them. Fourth is yet another brief mention. Fifth is an interview, therefore a primary source and invalid to use for notability purposes. Clearly not enough in-depth coverage about this singer to show she has enough notability for her own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Natalie Sandtorv is increasingly present on the music scenes with many projects and a solo album, where do you want to redirect her? This is her entry at Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/natalie-sandtorv-mn0003264451/credits, at All About Jazz - The Jist: The Jist (2014): http://www.allaboutjazz.com/the-jist-the-jist-va-fongool-review-by-eyal-hareuveni.php, and Forced Exposure - SANDTORV, NATALIE: Pieces of Solitude - http://www.forcedexposure.com/Catalog/sandtorv-natalie-pieces-of-solitude-lp/VAF.012LP.html Knuand (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Scientific Computing Research Leadership Computing Challenge allocations[edit]

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

PROD removed with no explanation. PROD reasoning still stands: A long table, lots and lots of categories, but no explanation whatsoever of what this page is? The Advanced Scientific etc. doesn't have an article nor an explanation here (not under the full name nor as ALCC), although this problem was indicated 2 1/2 years ago. If you can't even explain what an article is about, and the three (presumably primary) sources all fail, then we have no way of determining its notability. clpo13_(talk) 01:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTJOURNAL MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of projects funded by a Department of Energy program, but I can't find any independent secondary sources discussing it. The table of items comes from primary sources. No indication that this is anything other than a normal program for funding projects. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article is Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. The list is a bit of advertising. Right above the "See also" with this link the article says "Participants may inquire about joining an existing project by contacting the project's Principal Investigator." StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The promotional material has been removed. I have added an introductory section to give encyclopedic context to a list that provides some practical examples of US efforts in Grand Challenge problems in computing. Would you take another look before deciding on deletion? Also, if you do delete, may I ask you to merge the relevant information I've added into Grand Challenges? --Djembayz (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of signicative efforts in advanced science... This article should be keeped and expanded. --Leglish (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors, particularly MarnetteD's WP:NOTJOURNAL insight, and StarryGrandma's very cogent points. While the table is well structured, I don't see the use of a list of allocations, so I don't see the benefit of the merge, sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actual allocations are important because it shows DOE priorities in terms of solving grand challenges. The priorities can change over time, this is what the list reflects. There is a taxpayer dollar amount associated to each allocation, which can be calculated based on the allocation size.Codepro (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I am in favor of promoting all STEM topics, this seems like a overly-specific list and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The title is also unworkable. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs more ref-searching than I have time for now, but seems notable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:44, 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. Biblioworm 16:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Eizenman[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He did play for the senior national team in a World Championship several times (possibly meeting Criterion #6), however, it was for Israel. Is there an exact assessment for national teams on what counts as notable? Israel has always been in the middle to low divisions in the world championships and has never been in the top Division. Other than that, he seems to fail the GNG since there doesn't seem to be significant second party coverage on IIHF Division II Group B champions from 2005, the only possible notable team he was on. Yosemiter (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter Criterion #6 is normally used for people who play at the championship level, so Division II play is not a high enough level for consideration.

That's what I assumed, I just couldn't find a direct statement of that. Yosemiter (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, if Erez Eizenman is deleted does his brother Alon Eizenman pass the GNG? He played for the Israeli national team (non-notable), a playoff MVP at Penn State while it was still an ACHA team (not listed in the league assessment), is a member of the ACHA Hall of Fame (does not meet #7), and only played professionally in France (had one tryout with Pittsburgh and only 52 professional games in France). There are quite a few articles cited for him, but are they notable enough? Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: There was this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alon Eizenman. But I still think Alon isn't notable. Joeykai (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deadman137 (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While one could argue that he might meet NHOCKEY#6 - his doing so would only indicate a flaw in the SNG, since I'm not seeing much in the way of sources to meet GNG. Reso lute 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not even a claim to significance. The books aren't even in Worldcat. The creator has since been blocked indefinitely by another admin as an advertising-only account. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Wilson-Bey[edit]

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

After reverting a copyvio which essentially copied the subject's Createspace profile into the article, I tried to improve the sourcing. What I found is a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:38, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Stefan[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He does meet the minimum NHOCKEY requirement #4 by being a First Team All-Star in a lower level minor league. Even with this, the article does not seem to meet GNG as there are only two second party articles (with one repeated from two different sources), both are about the only notable achievement has earned. Only one is actually about him, the other merely mentions him. This doesn't seem like he has significant coverage from multiple sources. But I could be wrong and if NHOCKEY is all that is needed, then Keep. Yosemiter (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: he doesn't meet requirement #4, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment, the SPHL is not considered a lower-level league and confers no presumptive notability.Joeykai (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my mistake, I forgot to check the LA. But as I stated, it still appears to fail the GNG (probably the main reason why the SPHL doesn't qualify for automatic qualification of #4 in the LA) Yosemiter (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has yet to play at a significant level of competition and he fails WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence proffered that he passes the GNG, and Joeykai is correct in pointing out that this guy plays in the rock-bottom minors. It's unsurprising that this is another of the many hundreds of GNG-failing substubs created by the infamous Dolovis. Ravenswing 19:15, 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) 08:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Hindu Kush earthquake[edit]

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

Low intensity (V (Moderate))
No injuries, deaths, or significant damage
Lack of coverage from the scientific community

There are destructive events in the Hindu Kush area, and we have articles on them, but this is not one of them. This USGS entry for the event tells part of the story:

M5.6 - Hindu Kush region, Afghanistan – United States Geological Survey

Dawnseeker2000 16:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:47, 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! 00:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's sound and accurate analysis. Non enclycloped, fails WP:EVENT and the WikiProject Earthquakes/notability guideline. Cavarrone 10:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insignificant Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasireddy clan[edit]

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

Notability Issue KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 06:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups -related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to: Although few sources exist in the google/news [89], can be directed to Vasireddy Venkatadri Nayudu. Pixarh (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing for a more notable article and this is often the case with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nort Beauchamp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX with only minor titles. Fails WP:GNG since coverage consists solely of results reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linnea Larsdotter[edit]

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

Not notable. A massive lovefest for a minor actress. Sourcing is beyond terrible. So much exaggeration and faked verification that this is almost a hoax. Mostly sourced to passing mentions, primary sources, listing and pages that don't mention her. With exception of local interest puff pieces, none of the sources are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about her. Poorly sourced overly promotional BLPs should not be on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is bombarded with bad sources to fake significance. She has a lot of roles but lacks significant roles in multiple notable prodctions. Has some awards but none are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does appear to have been created by someone with ties to the subject. The subject seems to have very tenuous notability, particularly evident with little to none or poor sourcing. ExRat (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I'll be happy to restore to draft on request should someone wish to improve it. Michig (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct brown 138[edit]

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

Existence does not equate to notability. Single reference is to a web page showing molecular formula and giving chemical details. Article needs references to non-trivial discussion of the subject in independent reliable sources. KDS4444^Talk 02:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:Direct brown 138. A brief search of the chemical literature indicates that this compound probably meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as is required for all articles about chemical compounds. But clearly the article is not acceptable in its current nearly empty state. Moving it to Draft space will allow the article's creator and/or other editors to work on it there until it is suitable for Article space. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft. The lack of any improvement since the article's creation points toward deletion. Bazj (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as it exists. It would be a trivial task to resurrect what little is here if another editor wished to make a robust article. Single source is commercial and this may be intended as an advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:02, 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. The arguments for keeping are consistent with policy and guidelines and have not been countered. Michig (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satyasheel Deshpande[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as I found nothing better than this, this, this and this and this hasn't changed much since starting in February 2006. Pinging Arpingstone, Hekerui, Quadell and author Srijand. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 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]

Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Other language coverage should be checked for as well AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can someone post his name in Devanagari script so we can check for Hindi sources? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bienfuxia: It's "सत्यशील देशपांडे". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless sources are verified and placed in the article, and if this happens, weak keep- no references or sources. not notable without sources. marginal notability. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see the references above User:DangerDogWest?

They are not in the article. Someone needs to review those sources for accuracy and make certain they are RS, then put them in the article so it does not get deleted. One of the problems with bios from India is people have a lot of similar sounding names and some of the articles are not translated well. I have seen a lot of bios on actors from India who air shows in the hindi language but somehow these people end up with ENGLISH bios on this site. Looks like PR advertisement to me. Why would someone from India have a bio in english on this site when most of their life is spent speaking Hindi and not English. Is this person notable to the english speaking world or is WP an advertising medium for entertainers from India? Unless they have done something to be notable to the English speaking world, doesn't belong here. It may belong in the Hindi WP. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. See WP:GEOBIAS. People are notable regardless of the language they speak. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Pinging SpacemanSpiff and AKS.9955 for a better consensus. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a notable vocalist and musician. Some quick searches reveled this, this, mention in this book, mention in this book, mention in this paper, this article and this article. I agree with the nominator that the article needs facelift but then that does not dilute the notability of the musician. I will try and expand this article later this week. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Entertainment[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP notability. Very little news on this company other than routine officer replacements. Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 25 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) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging past user Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources being available to show this topic as meeting WP:ORG. ie: Broadway World TV News Desk, TBI Vision, & more, Needs work... not deletion for the lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Schmidt plus others (eg Variety [90] and Deadline [91]). Side note, if even it would had failed to meet GNG and WP:ORG, I would had kept this one for WP:IAR, because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced. Cavarrone 16:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: Doesn't "because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced" invoke inherited notability? Brianhe (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, it invoked the WP:IAR policy as I pointed at, as well as my common sense. Anyway, as I explained above, my vote is based on available sources, as the company appears to easily meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG notability guidelines. Cavarrone 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as prima facie notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably just dense but what makes it prima facie notable? Brianhe (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I took one look at it and the current sourcing. If this is not notable on its face, then nothing is. I believe this is the most extreme case of WP:BEFORE I have ever seen. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tarun Mansukhani. More participation here would have been nice. Redirecting per the sources and rationale provided by MichaelQSchmidt. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dostana 2[edit]

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

Movie has been shelved according to latest available information NJ (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: "Dostana 2" "Dostana sequel"

Redirect to a sourced mention in a related article: Per WP:NFF, films which "...were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines" BUT with the topic of the canceled film having coverage to meet WP:GNG it CAN be spoken of in related articles, even if never made. So per sources speaking about his unrealized plans, I suggest a redirect to and sourced mention in the article of director Tarun Mansukhani, specially as it is sourcable that he has plans to make the sequel: Tarun Mansukhani quote: " I am not making 'Dostana 2? right now. But now it is an ego thing so I will make 'Dostana 2' some day. His "some day" makes this TOO SOON, but its failure to be made has enough sourcing to at least be spoken of some place. [92][93][94] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:06, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Wicker[edit]

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

Seems like an interesting professor, but fails WP:NACADEMICS. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been elected to the Royal Society of Humanities, Uppsala, Sweden, and the Internationales Sachsensymposion. Both selective and prestigious appointments I think. (probably also the first woman and the first American in each case)

President of the Society of Historians of Scandinavia.

Also professor at three different universities including outside her own country at Uppsala University.

Probably also meets WP:AUTHOR in having created a significant body of work in several areas such as gender and archaeology, jewellery in the early middle ages, and runic inscriptions. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Philafrenzy has argued, she would appear to meet several of the criteria in WP:NACADEMICS, which merely requires that the subject meet just one of the criteria. Edwardx (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NACADEMICS states that "the person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". The Society of Historians of Scandinavia doesn't even have a Wiki article. And how, specifically, does this biography meet WP:AUTHOR? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Royal Society of Humanities, Uppsala, Sweden, and the Internationales Sachsensymposion, as I think was clear. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with a caveat) Her work does not look notable. no books, except edited collections, is unusual for a historian - to say the least. Worse, Gender and the archaeology of death, got perhaps only one review, in a minor journal Canadian Journal of Archaeology, and although the editor's task in such a volume is to write the introduction, that review (here:[95]) dismissed her contribution: "Arnold and Wicker fail to provide a well-informed statement that situates this group of papers in a theoretical or methodological context." That's as bad as it gets. My caveat is that she would qualify if being an international member of the Royal Society of Humanities, Uppsala, (Do we have the correct name for this society? see: Swedish Royal Academies) provides automatic notability, i.e., if the Society is truly notable, and if international membership confers notability. This, however, is a slender reed, notability in scholarship is usually more obvious.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's here: Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala. According to the Swedish article, membership is limited to 50 scholars. She's also a member of Det Konglige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab (The Royal Nordic Society of Antiquaries) according to the sources. On the books, I don't believe that whether a book gets a good or a bad review is relevant. Nor is the fact that someone produces mainly articles and edited works rather than full length books. Different scholars work in different ways and some prefer to publish mainly in articles and that may be the norm in their area. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you know what the Society's selection criteria are? I cite the book review simply because it was so dismissive of her work that is evidence - not definitive evidence, but evidence nevertheless - of low regard by fellow scholars. As for books and WP:PROFESSOR, book reviews can validate notability; edited volumes - not so much. Articles can, of course establish notability, but whereas reviews of authored books in significant journals establish notability, when a scholar in the humanities has published articles but not any authored books, the individual articles need to be queried for notability. i.e., are they cited and are they discussed as significant work by other scholars?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the criteria are. Book reviews can be helpful, but for evidence of the regard she is held in I believe the best measure would be election to the Swedish, Nordic and Saxon societies and presidency of the Historians of Scandinavia. There is more in the 28 page CV if you are having difficulty getting to sleep. (I know its not independent). I think she is as much of an archaeologist as an art historian and in the arch field it is common to work mainly by article and conference paper rather than single author books. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Society of Historians of Scandinavia (SHS) is an historians' interest group in the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study (SASS)" [96] While I am sure this does connote the respect of her colleagues, this is not a major scholarly organization it does not meet criteria for notability under WP:PROFESSOR or WP:AUTHOR. A major scholarly organization would be something like the American Historical Association, the College Art Association and possibly/arguably the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study. I'm casting about for something to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly an influential academic in her field. Our notability criteria for academics are currently quite a bit tighter than the criteria for porn actresses, athletes and musicians - I think it is reasonable to cut a little slack in cases like this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems notable and acceptable for the time being. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment citation numbers on her articles are low, note that some of these (the bench science ones) are to another Nancy Wicker, and that citations of the book are usually to specific articles by other scholars within the edited volume [97] We need a more persuasive argument to keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a first woman (academic) and a first as an American with a membership in a particular international society are both notable events. Atsme^📞📧 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as all the biographical information can be verified from reliable sources, which is the nub of WP:N. Apart from that, Wicker appears to be a more significant figure than most academics. When it comes to that criterion quoted from WP:NACADEMICS about "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association", the meaning of "highly selective" and "prestigious" is pretty subjective. Whether the Society of Historians of Scandinavia has a WP article or not, those descriptions must be arguable, and they do seem to apply to the Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala, which is limited to fifty members. Moonraker (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help me out here I understand the inclination of members of the Wikipedia Womens' History Project to support keeping women on Wikipedia. But we need to have standards. We could keep this article if 1.) Someone could demonstrate that the Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala (a new article started, appropriately, to support Wicker at AFD) is selective. Not all small academic societies are. 2.) If we could find a public impact of her work, my searches on Proquest Newspapers turned up a single line in a single article about how her department is part of a university-wide effort to prepare students for the real world. 3.) - and this is the real shot we have to keep her - if we can demonstrate academic impact. She is in a smallish field: art historical analysis of archaeological artifacts in Scandinavia, especially as pertains to the role of women in society. What we need to show is that she has impacted this field with her close looks at topics including: the advent of Christian iconography in Scandinavia; infanticide; women's roles in medieval Scandinavia. My problem here is that her citation numbers are low. The usual way around this is to show that her work is discussed by other scholars in her field. For scholars with any impact at all in history, archaeology, art history, this is readily established by typing a name into google books and finding sentences like: "As Nancy Wicker has shown in her study of..." Or, better yet, "The influence of Nancy Wicker's finding that..." Here, my problem is that all I am finding are what scholars call "dropping a footnote, i.e., in the discussion of a topic on which she has published, the author includes her in a footnote. This, as scholarly impact goes, is on a level with "name checking" (in which the author writes something like: "See discussions by Nancy Wicker, Suzy Q. and Joe Schmo), I did see a footnote or two in which she was name checked. So, can someone Help me out by finding a scholarly publication in which her work is discussed as impactful. Or something. We don't keepp academics simply because they have a long c.v.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to rely on her CV, other people who ought to know have already decided she matters. Three universities have appointed her to professorships, including Uppsala which is one of the best universities in Europe according to our article, and three selective societies have appointed her to membership: Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala, The Royal Nordic Society of Antiquaries, and the Internationales Sachsensymposion. I find that more persuasive than your inability to find the correct form of words in databases. I am struggling to know why you object so much to this woman. Was someone by that name nasty to you when you were a child, leaving you with a lifetime aversion to people named Wicker? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. I have now spent a significant amount of time trying to keep this article up by sourcing it. I often do this for academics. I beg your indulgence for seeming to be overly legalistic, but the rule sates: ":3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)." We need to establish that one of these three academic societies meets this standard. Few Academic societies do. I do see that the one at Upsala has only 50 members, that does not mean that it is "highly selective and prestigious." It has to be both. Or we need to demonstrate using WP:RS that she passes other criteria listed on WP:PROFESSOR. If you know her or her work, or if you work in medieval Scandinavia or art history, you can probably supply such evidence, and I hope that you will. I am asking for evidence not because I am persnickety, but because, at this point, keeping Wicker, (the evidence presented to date supporting keep is that she belongs to Academic Societies and publishes) would not merely qualify virtually every professor in America, it would be a radical change in Wikipedia's standards for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we are uncertain exactly how "selective and prestigious" those societies are but we only need one of the three to be selective and prestigious don't we even if she had no other claim to notability? I note that two of them are Royal societies, which, while not determinative, is suggestive of their exclusivity. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask Sweden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - no need to ask Sweden, just do the research: [98], [99], [100]. In addition to multiple grants, awards and scholarships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, she has authored/co-authored 14 publications. She meets the requirements for Wikipedia:NACADEMICS without question. Atsme^📞📧 21:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Atsme. I see that you have been editing for several years. Surely you understand that the sources you just brought are not WP:RS. And can see that every source now on the page is primary. In the event that you have contributed to Wikipedia, but never been involved at WP:AFD, you might want to review the rules. Many fine academics have worthy careers, but do not meet WP:PROFESSOR. SOMEONE needs to provide WP:RS showing that she meets WP:PROFESSOR or otherwise meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NACADEMICS,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 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.

[1] Doz, Yves; Santos, Jose; Williamson, Peter (2001). From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy. Harvard Business Press. pp. 85–114. ISBN 9780875848709. Retrieved 8 November 2015.

[2] Goldstein, Lisa (July 16, 2015). Using Developmentally Appropriate Practices to Teach the Common Core: Grades PreK–3. Routledge. ISBN 9781317743620. Retrieved 8 November 2015.

[3] Harris, Amanda; Thieberger, Nick; Barwick, Linda (October 2, 2015). Research, Records and Responsibility: Ten years of PARADISEC. Sydney University Press. pp. 115–132. ISBN 9781743324431. Retrieved 8 November 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]