Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 September	2 October >

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. Sandstein 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Mkrtchyan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has played in the Armenian Premier League. Since this league is not confirmed as fully pro (see WP:FPL), this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Players fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom Spiderone 17:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Catania[edit]

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

No indication of notability; sources are either press releases or passing mentions that do not cover Catania in any detail. Was prodded for that reason, prod removed without improvement. Huon (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:POLITICIAN. We are not a web host for political consultants. There are about 530 campaigns for congress and senate every two years; by definition, more than half of which will lose. Being a campaign manager of such a campaign does not magically grant notability, and is, in fact, for the most part totally mundane. For a campaign manager to get notability, we've had a very high standard. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links but certainly not enough to suggest better improvement and notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - searches didn't turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Google brings up tons of sources & books so it's clearly a notable subject, The article does however need some improving (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travel clinic[edit]

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

Dictionary article with little relevant content. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable concept with lots of potential sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems acceptable and with no urgent need of deletion. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:DGG. (Non-admin closure) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Yadav[edit]

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

Does not state notability. Charlie the Pig (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No claim of notability, appears to be an autobiography. --Finngall ^talk 20:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Ecological Interactions Worldwide[edit]

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

WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:NOTESSAY. This looks like a journal article or a thesis paper that was just pasted into article space, but I wasn't able to find any copyvio. If this is an important topic (Google suggests that it might be), I think the best approach would be WP:TNT. shoy (reactions) 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content seems either original or a copyright violation and is by the way some sort of papper/essay as the nominator said. –Lappspira (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-constructive, non-encyclopedic. The basic premise is pollution hurts the planet. The analysis seems to be by process, which is a useful approach. --Bejnar (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This current version is simply unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a clear example of WP:ISNOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNU PDF[edit]

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

The GNU PDF project is dead; it no longer has a website and there has been no development for years. The project never produced any notable software. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What you say is true. There is no there there. GangofOne (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The Free Software Foundation ref is a press release and not independent. A search turned up additional Free Software Foundation content, and this linux.com article but no other significant WP:RS coverage. As above, this project is defunct so future significant coverage is highly unlikely.Dialectric (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding the relevant guideline (WP:Notability_does_not_degrade_over_time), this never seems to have been notable, and its only reference is it being discontinued.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to show it passes notability guidelines. Only alternative would be to merge to the GNU article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spurious AfD by what appears to be a disgruntled user. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DistroWatch[edit]

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

Creating AfD for new user. Will let them fill in the details Primefac (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I’ll certainly admit that the article is very poorly sourced, the subject receives a fair amount of coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and is often cited by third parties ([5], [6], and [7]). It also seems to be well known and respected in the Linux users community, based on my small amount of research. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Watch007 - you wanted this page nominated, and it would be good if you could explain why. If you do not reply, I will assume you do not want it nominated anymore and will withdraw the nomination. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article may not have many reliable sources in it, but as Non-Dropframe points out, the website is very notable especially within the Linux/BSD community and there are sources to back that up... they're just not in the article right now. :P Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found on the article talk page from the new user/nominator as follows: "All the references don't make sense I would like a Speedy delete. Its all self promotional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watch007 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC) " --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the page should provide more proof in references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watch007 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch007 Hi there! I'm going to recommend you familiarize yourself further with the deletion policy before you nominate any more pages for deletion. An article lacking references isn't an acceptable deletion rationale. The subject is notable even if the sources fail to demonstrate this and therefore the article will almost certainly be kept. You may wish to consider withdrawing your nomination. If I can be of further help, let me know here or on my talk page. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources located by Non-Dropframe, I also note that the magazine is published in 14 different languages. It appears to me that it would have been just as easy to improve the article as it was to nominate for AfD in this case. -- 009o9 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall, though the trend is towards keep as the article was being edited. Can be renominated if still considered problematic in the current state. Sandstein 20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transphotographiques[edit]

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

A search for English language sources only came up with WP:ROUTINE mentions; no in depth coverage found. NE Ent 01:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes no claim on behalf of the subject for encyclopedic notability. English language coverage appears to be run of the mill. Subject appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. More broadly the article fails WP:V. Am open to reconsideration if better reliable source coverage (possibly in French?) is uncovered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have added references from The Daily Telegraph, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Libération and Chanel. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Changing !vote based on improvements made in the article and sourcing. However while the number of sources has increased sharply, I am generally unimpressed by their overall quality. Most are little more than a paragraph and I am not seeing much in the form of "in depth" coverage called for by the guidelines. Broadly speaking I think the coverage could be described as shallow and run of the mill. Still I think there is enough, if only barely, to give the benefit of the doubt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lengthier articles of those used are these, Ad Orientem: 'From Classic to Transphotographiques', 'In Lille, Clashes over Palestine', 'On Nature, and the Nature of Photography', 'Fashion shows his photographs in Lille', 'Territory and Landscape hollow to Transphotographiques', 'Kolekcja Transphotographiques'. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who (inadvertantly) brought this one to NE Ent's attention, after stumbling upon in whilst Random page patrolling. Anyway, if I was braver, I would have nominated it for AfD myself. In any case, I'll just go with "delete, as per Ad Orientem", but add that I fear this article may also be a covert attempt at promotion of the subject matter using Wikipedia as the vehicle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although some additional effort has been made as to improving the article, I still do not see it as something that rises to the level of depth and importance to have a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than this, this and this. Feel free to draft and userfy, SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 1. But SisterTwister, your (or anyone's) citing of "this, this and this" is meaningless to anybody else, thanks to our wildly differing filter bubbles. Yes, it does seem that there's not so much on the web about Transphotographiques, but that isn't the way to demonstrate it. ¶ 2. Hmm, interesting subject, Transphotographiques. Let's see what we can find about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Started as a wonky translation of a feeble article at fr:Wikipedia, nominated for deletion as such; since then quite transformed by Lopifalko. (I wonder what NE Ent, IJBall, Kierzek and SwisterTwister think.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC) ... PS and Ad Orientem too. (Sorry for the accidental omission.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know I lack the skill set to evaluate French language sources and was unable to find English languages sources that indicate notability. NE Ent 10:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does The Daily Telegraph mention even do that? – Does being included in a list of international photography festivals get you a wikipedia page?... I guess I'm still not seeing what's so particularly notable about this festival that it should be included in an encyclopedia. What do the French references say?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Translate is your friend IJBall. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It now has plenty of refs that demonstrate coverage year-after-year in various notable national broadsheet newspapers (plus Chanel thrown in for good measure!). -Lopifalko (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The state of the article has significantly changed during the course of the AfD, so a relist is needed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bulk and quality are of course only loosely correlated; the mere fact that this article now has about four times as many bytes as it did immediately before the AfD template was added to it does not prove that it's better. However, it certainly is very different now from how it was then. And since Lopifalko mentioned the addition of sources in Le Monde, Libération, and others, it has come to cite additional sources (going well beyond mere mentions) in Le Soir, La Voix du Nord and more. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article now has close to six times as many bytes as it did immediately before deletion was proposed. Again, this simple fact does not imply that it's better, let alone that it's six times better. But it certainly is different. I've a hunch that there's enough material about the subject in Polish alone to demonstrate Wikipedia-style notability; but I don't read Polish and (except for extremely limited purposes) don't trust Google Translate or similar. ¶ I note that NE Ent proposed (above) that the article should be deleted because A search for English language sources only came up with WP:ROUTINE mentions; no in depth coverage found. This is ambiguous: Does it mean that no in depth coverage in English was found, or that none in any language was found? If the former, I hadn't been aware that this was a reason for deletion. If the latter, here's a tip: Go to Transphotographiques' what's-on-this-website page, and for each year's festival, click "Presse" (which as you may guess is French for "press"). You'll see lots of press tearsheets. There's very little in English, for some reason. (I can speculate why not, but this isn't the place.) Now, in general it's undesirable to cite sources as they are reproduced within the website of a company, person, festival etc that benefits from these: they may have been adulterated or mocked up. ¶ Worse, this website is rather crappy, with dud links (links that when clicked don't lead anywhere), and META NAME="Keywords" whose "content" includes nu, charme, glamour [...] nude, [...] lingerie, [...] lingerie, nu, [...] nude, [...] fille, [...] girl, [...] nu, [...] erotisme, femme, corps, [...] glamour, nu, nue, nude, photos, fille -- and that's their repetition, not mine. Possibly search engines infer, reasonably enough, that the whole enterprise is spammy and therefore kick its content down the hitlist -- and anyway, text within JPEGs can't be indexed. ¶ Regardless of the quality of the website surrounding them, we do have plenty of JPEGs of newspaper articles. I suggest that a festival whose website dared fake newspaper content (substituting words, misattributing, creating out of whole cloth) would soon find itself in deep doodoo indeed, and thus that these JPEGs are pretty trustworthy. Anyway, the article now has a fair number of sources that are independent of the website. ¶ NE Ent later added the comment I know I lack the skill set to evaluate French language sources and was unable to find English languages sources that indicate notability. I wonder why somebody unable to evaluate French language sources would nominate for deletion an article the majority of whose sources are likely to be in French, and why, realizing that there are indeed what appear to be sources in French, this person would continue to object to the article on the grounds that sources in English couldn't be found. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC) ........typo fixed Hoary (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for NE Ent. The article now has almost ten times as many bytes as it did immediately before you, NE Ent, nominated it for deletion because "no in depth coverage found". (Not that this necessarily means that it's better. Please judge its improvement, if any, for yourself.) Well, here are the hits that Google finds for Transphotographiques in just a single newspaper, La Voix du Nord. Now, "other crap exists" is famously an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but permit me to ask a question. In your opinion, how does the Transphotographiques article now stack up against, say, the article on Belvoir Media Group? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated above, the matter has gotten more than tangential mentions in terms of reliable source coverage. Maybe it doesn't pass the bar by much, comparatively speaking, but I think it does. Notability is a topic that crosses different languages. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After the relisting that was performed to ensure fairness in the discussion process, consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)[edit]

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

Torso found in 1960 in state of advanced decomposition and unable to be identified. No WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources beyond initial 1960 news article. Google search and Google news search return no relevant links.

Other Unidentified Persons Database reference contains no details that meet WP:GNG. Third linked ref is independent, non-law enforcement volunteer site which does not meet WP:RS.

Victim was toddler or young child when murdered and at time of murder was not notable for anything else. WP:NOTNEWS. AldezD (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Keep - NOTNEWS does not apply here. Clearly notable. Per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Better sourcing could be an option though. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination is spiteful and frivolous. This article was patrolled when it was created and found to be acceptable for Wikipedia. AldezD has done some good work on the wiki but at times he gives the impression of being on a personal crusade, imposing his views. I would hesitate to call him a troll but... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There’s a WP:ANI thread relevant to this comment. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recently uncovered several more resources giving information for the victim and planned to update it when I got the chance. I feel the case meets sourcing requirements as the presence of primary and secondary currently are used in the article and more will soon be added.The Doe Network does have law enforcement background and even has members that are liaisons/officers of law enforcement facilities. This AFD seems rushed, in my opinion. No need to get too carried away. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was not canvassed, as I have made significant contributions to the article itself and other related topics. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 20:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat to event article She wasn't even an entire corpse, ~~just a torse. At least as far as anyone here knows.~~ Of course, she used to be a person, but nothing she did during that time was worth a mention, let alone significant coverage. Jane Doe's body parts turn up all the time, and while I appreciate the clever nickname separating her from the rest, that nickname doesn't help her notability case a bit. See nobody for details. The hubbub got some attention, but she did essentially nothing. Not a real biography. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When her identity becomes known, we can rename it "Murder of ...", as we did with Caledonia Jane Doe, and a couple of other recently-identified UIDs. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world, we'd wait to see if she was murdered, too. We don't even know the cause of death, let alone the manner. "Little Miss Nobody case" would cover everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it could be "Death of ..." if any determination of the cause of death does not state that it's a homicide. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes LMN buried herself in that creek bed. ("...the bullet, like drove itself into my gut...") Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burying a body isn't killing a person (unlawfully or otherwise). Maybe she ate some bad tuna, her parents freaked out because social workers warned them about that tuna, they swept her under the rug and told the state she went to live on a farm with her grandparents. Or something entirely different, but still not murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just added more information from the resources I had saved previously (more than doubling the amount prior to the AFD), the cause of the girl's death was never determined. However, authorities expressed suspicions of foul play and some of the sources stated it was murder. Notably, Bella Bond was found in a garbage bag and remained unidentified until last week. Her death cause was never determined but officials went ahead and stated it was homicide, as well as the allegations made by Bella's mother that her boyfriend has punched the girl until she died.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're going with the Bella Bond thing, but yeah, it's definitely suspicious. People suspected foul play in the Salish Sea human foot discoveries, too. It's human nature to not think of bad fish eating us. We blame our neighbours instead. But suspicion doesn't make something real enough for an article title. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where exactly is it stated that only the torso of the victim was found? As far as I've read, it was determined that the child had teeth that were well-cared for and that she had painted her toenails. NAMUS profile states "all parts recovered." --GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it from the nominator, just sort of assumed it was true. My bad. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His story about SIGCOV seems to check out, though. A local (partial) skeleton. Two steps below Mountain Meadow Massacre remains and four below Romanov cremains. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most people today outside Philadelphia wouldn't recognise the Boy in the Box but he still gets an article. People publicised LMN throughout the freaking USA in 1960 trying to give her her name back. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying and failing, evidently. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So not only is this AFD spiteful and frivolous, the nominator didn't even get the facts right. What a Mickey Mouse operation he is. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, as much as I know how frustrating it is to get an article AFD'ed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Stevik (3rd nomination) is a good example) it's best to stay away from comments like this. It could only make the situation worse.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm just increasingly frustrated with AldezD. Forgive me. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, any unidentified-decedent case that makes national news, whenver, is inherently notable IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count as "making national news" if several papers in various American places run the same AP story? That's all I'm seeing (white shorts, checkered blouse, leather sandals). Could be missing something big, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question first, the copycat/herd mentality nature of corporate media is used quite often to justify recentist piffle, even when the end result amounts to a WP:BLP1E violation. I have no real opinion on the article, but rather wanted to say something about this topic in general. I came across Wikipedia's coverage of unidentified murder victims through work on Robert Hansen. The tone conferred through this coverage suggests that Wikipedia is being used as a venue for advocacy on the issue. For that reason alone, I would be suspicious of anything I see on here in this topic area. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most (if not all) articles on this topic on Wikipedia are added only when there is a reasonable amount of information available on the case and if there is some level of prominence to the public. Users that have created these pages know this. Otherwise Wikipedia would look more like The Doe Network, the Unidentified Wikia or NamUs with thousands of short, stubby articles. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 05:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Huffington Post still lists her in 2015 as one of "9 Murder Victims Whose Names Remain a Mystery". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion proposal is based strictly on the claim of non-notability. However, the notability criteria are all satisfied: The entry's subject has been given significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources, which are independent of the subject. This Wikipedia entry easily passes the N-test. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a widely covered instance of unidentified victim/unsolved murder that passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Is it still widely covered when we count all the AP articles as one?

Anyway, according to this other AP story, another "Little Miss Nobody" was buried right beside this one, thirty years later. We don't have Francine Meegan, but she could make for a third paragraph in the Burial section here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment spreading via the Associated Press is the pre-Internet equiv of "Baby Doe"'s case spreading like wildfire in the Internet Age. I'm old enough to remember when afternoon newspapers still had some life in them and i know it's hard for some editors to remember what things were like before they changed with the Internet Age. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newswires are still alive and well in this modern day. Still count as one source. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just realised that the last edit to the Little Miss Nobody article or talk page before AldezD called this AFD was mine, over a month after the last edit to the article. Either it's a big coincidence or AldezD is stalking my edits, checking what contributions i am making. That alone, if true, should get him reprimanded. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with checking someone's edit history. It's all as public as the edits are. Hounding is another story. I just creeped your contributions and notice you said the same thing at the administrator's noticeboard, except you also want this AfD thrown out for this. That gameplan is pretty much doomed; if you want the article kept, just wait. I'm only objecting to the lack of notability for the record. I don't expect it to change the outcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just increasing frustrated with his behaviour. I'm sorry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your frustration leads to his behaviour (or alters the way you perceive his behaviour). Heather O'Rourke once said talking about things makes them happen, and she seems to be the root of this problem. Rather than apologize to me, who you haven't wronged, maybe try apologizing to and forgiving your enemy instead. Who better could use it? Might help settle the disruptions. Or maybe I'm a delusional hippie. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination claims that subject fails WP:GNG. There are sufficient WP:RS to establish that the subject passes WP:GNG. This is not an example of WP:NOTNEWS - this is not a news report.--Jersey92 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Article creator WP:CANVASSED for AFD: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. AldezD (talk)

It was *not* WP:CANVASSing. to quote Daniel Case on my talk page "I just warned you because it could be used in the AfD to discredit a keep consensus (although in this case I genuinely think you weren't trying to do that)". Plus, all the people i notified had the following apply to them:

Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Editors known for expertise in the field

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your note Whether someone has been canvassing in respect of this RfC or not is entirely irrelevant to the RfC, since all opinions stand on their own merit. If you believe that someone, e.g. PBA, has been canvassing, there are appropriate forums to which you should address this. The Wikipedia administrator who will eventually decide upon this RfC is not the party responsible for deciding on the charge of canvassing. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User also undid my edits ~~twice~~ three times notifying closing admin of AFD that page creator had WP:CANVASSed. [14], [15], [16]. One edit summary by user is "don't irritate me" AldezD (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The third diff given in the above note was a removal of the note itself. The WP:CANVASS notification was only removed twice. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to withdraw from this AfD. It is obvious that even keeping to Wikipedia policy on who to notify in WP:CANVASS is being held against me and AldezD is happy to use "exact words" of Wikipedia policies to achieve his goals. I'm burnt out. I faced this before, when WP was faced with left wing editors determined to WP:OWN Soviet-related articles. I'm just plain burnt out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edited to add): definitely burnt out. I thought Little Miss Nobody was as notable as say Sheree Beasley and Karmein Chan are here in Australia. Maybe i was wrong. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an impartial observation, but at this point there are no “delete” votes, and there are “keep” votes from editors who were not directly notified. Doesn’t seem on track for deletion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is sort of a delete vote. Burn the biography, raise an event article. Essentially would have the same content, but she's indisputably not notable for anything she did as a person. Other people's discovery of her corpse at least touches the "notable enough" line. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was not canvassed. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry to rain on the parade, but this is a fairly classic example of a true crime story — unidentified remains from 50 years ago, victim's age unknown, case unsolved. Lots of media coverage at the time and another round of coverage of the fact that this is an old unsolved case. That does not an encyclopedia article make. NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and NOTPOLICEBLOTTER are the relevant guidelines. I would urge that this be held open another week to see what a truly random selection of community members feel about the notability here as this feels very much like a packed jury. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have indeed been asked by Paul Benjamin Austin to participate in the discussion and his invitation was clearly meant to have me "support" his position for the article to stay up. Having said that, let me state that there is no way on earth that I would be swayed by any such invitation, whether to support or oppose something. I make up my own mind and, in fact, it would've pleased me a great deal to go against the intentions of the editor who invited me over! But the facts, in my view, are clearly in favor of letting the article stay up. Which is what shaped my position; nothing else did. If there is a "packed jury" I am not part of it. Let me end by saying that this is the first interaction I had with this particular editor in all my years in Wikipedia. Cheers - and, people, loosen up, will you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

Comment - THIS by Paul Benjamin Austin is inexcusable. Don't ever pull that shit again, either the canvassing or especially the removal of a complaint against you with a snotty edit summary... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paul's behavior has little relevance to whether or not the article should be kept. Using profanity and borderline incivility when responding to his comments kind of defeats the purpose of pointing out his less-than-civil edit summary.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing particularly profane about "shit" in English anymore (we have F word or N-word, and no S words), but telling someone to never pull it again is a bit threatening. That's not that civil. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Like i said, I think I'm burnt out. I'm also under heavy stress because of my mother's ill health. Under such tremendous strain, I might be letting AldezD's view of What Wikipedia should be get to me more than it should do. Again, I'm not American and if LMN (she really should have a name like Barbara or Mary, than a title) is not as notable as say, Sheree Beasley or Karmein Chan, I'm willing to say goodbye to the article. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carrite: I request this comment be moved to the AN/I thread. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of you may have noticed I moved the page to not presume murder. It's a good guess, but that's all it is. This title allows for any possible future eureka moment. Hope that's alright by you humans and doesn't screw up the way this is listed for any computers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have prefferred if it would have taken place after the AfD was over, but it's good to be bold.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is shaping up to be a replay of the now closed RfC about whether or not "murder" signifies "murderer". Let's please don't. Here's the consensus of the competent authorities: "Investigators at the scene...observed that the individual or individuals responsible for the burial had possibly made several attempts to dig different graves for the body, as disturbances in the sand near the body suggested. ... Her cause of death was never successfully determined by medical examiners. Police guessed she had been murdered, given the circumstances of the crime scene." I would kindly ask InedibleHulk to revert his edit. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. "Police guessed she had been murdered...". Their guess remains as good as anyone's, and a guess is a pretty flimsy thing to hang an article title on, especially when the new disambiguator is 100% true and inclusive (this whole thing's a cold case), far more concise and doesn't frame this as a biography (lacking any biographical info).

Not sure what that first quote was supposed to mean here. How someone died has no bearing on how many tries it takes to dig a grave. That's up to the ground quality and your tools. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that the opinion of the police carries the same weight as "anyone's"? Is it perhaps in your plans to strike off the criteria for reliable sources? Are we going to have, at long last, total relativism in this world of ours? This is getting interesting, if not downright amusing. -The Gnome (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since this AfD started, you made nine (9) changes to the article, most of them in relation to the very nature of the case, which, as it happens, is directly linked to this AfD. This is not "being "being bold" but, to put it mildly, bad form. -The Gnome (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the case is it's unsolved. It's certainly not a murder case, even presuming police can guess better than anyone. And most of them were grammar and wordiness edits. The most substantial bit was attributing the vague "It is believed" to the police, instead of say, anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been gently reminded that Wikipedia does recognize that some parties' "opinions" or "guesses" carry far more weight than others'. The former are reliable sources and the latter, well, they are not. Yet, you're keen to re-write or ignore Wikipedia's rules, which is what makes you write: "...even presuming police can guess better than anyone". There is no "presuming" to be made, sir. That is utter nonsense. -The Gnome (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The sources say the police guessed it was murder. That's all. And the article relays that just fine.~~ There was no murder investigation, because the coroner couldn't tell whether to check the "Homicide" box. If that proper authority had, then the police guess would start carrying weight. But as things actually turned out, that's as far as we still know, despite the best guesses of Sergeant Joe and Average Joe. It's a thrilling 0-0 tie, during which time the people who actually knew probably died mysteriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is anything but "thrilling" is this tiresomely maniacal effort to "keep Wikipedia from judging" anything. In reality, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a judge of anyone or anything; it merely reflects what's out there, in the context of third-party, reliable sources. Here's what might be confusing you: The entry's text currently reads, "The police guessed [etc]". But police departments and especially American ones have rarely if ever used the word "guess" in regards to their assessments, either as a noun or as a verb, in their official statements. Which means that the loaded term "guess", on which you are trying to anchor an argument, is either the term used by the newspaper (on an impossible to read facsimile), or more probably one chosen by a careless Wikipedia editor. To recap: Police assessments do not carry the same weight as "anyone's", at least not in the context of Wikipedia editing, despite what you might think. They carry way more weight! And what we have coming out of the competent, responsible police department is that this is a murder case whether we like that or not, and whether we agree with that or not. Please, make an effort to understand how Wikipedia works. -10:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I just found an online version of the news article. Turns out the headline was wrong, and the story doesn't mention guessing or murder. Just police appealing for clues. So there you go. It does call this the "Little Miss Nobody case", oddly enough. I can't find a single thing saying this ever became a murder case. Have you? The DoeNetwork lists only the medical examiner under "Investigating agencies". Why'd you quote "keeping Wikipedia from judging"? I didn't say that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rome one doesn't mention murder, either. So I've removed the "presuming" and "guessed" bits. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it make more sense to refer to the article simply as Death of Little Miss Nobody? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The past is truly a different country. Riley Ann Sawyers got Baby Grace, while LMN got a Jane Withers movie title. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of canvassing concerns. Sandstein 17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is notable and was revisited as recently as August 25, 2015, by the Huffington Post.[17] Per my reading of WP:CRIME this meets item #1. Since this is an article about a notable crime and not a biography, I find those delete arguments specious. Additionally, WP:NOTNEWS (N/A hardly breaking news and still receives coverage 55 years later), WP:NOTMEMORIAL (N/A since nobody knows who she is) and WP:NOTPOLICEBLOTTER (N/A is not a thing) are too far of a stretch to delete an article about a notable event. BTW: I was not canvassed, I stumbled on to the discussion from AfD Today-- 009o9 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage over the years, similar to other non-identified decedents. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated above, this is a case that didn't just 'come and go' decades ago. Further interest has remained in reliable sources, with the Huffington Post commenting on it more recently. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage at the time and later to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to multiple examples of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, spanning decades of time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else. Notability is consistent. Versus001 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As someone above noted Hufftington Post even touched on it in August so it's clearly notable (I try to avoid WP:ITSNOTABLE-type !votes but in this case It actually is notable), Anyway notability's there –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC). =++++[reply]

I'm not calling it non-notable, just keep in mind that The Huffington Post publishes about 1,900 articles per day. At that rate, they mention everything. It's not like there's a bar to clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am a bit skeptical about the weight given to The Huffington Post. The blog post is essentially the work of two people at The Lineup. Apparently you can let them know if you find something interesting and it might make its way into their project which in turn could make its way into The Huffington Post. The Wikipedia article predates their article by a couple months, so it wouldn't surprise me if they used Wikipedia as their source. It's proof of nothing, but you'll be hard pressed to find information in that article that isn't already in Wikipedia. - Location (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stage Irish. Or wherever subsequent consensus may determine (this is the current redirect target of Irish cultural stereotypes). Whether to merge any content from the history is also an editorial matter. But consensus here is not to keep it as a separate article. Sandstein 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paddywhackery[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable portmanteau that may be appropriate for Wiktionary. Fails WP:NOTDICT. - Mr X 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The concept doesn't appear to have a clear, consistent definition in the first place, and it's something for a dictionary rather than Wikipedia anyways it seems. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopaedic. WP:NOT. It may be a less than subtle promotion of the television program. --Bejnar (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I might be able to find something for this, at least to where it could be in Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding quite a bit of coverage in academic texts like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I'd necessarily call it a neologism, as the term seems to be in fairly widespread use in academic circles and I'm finding some evidence to show that it's been used for a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask around for help on this one from the various WPs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Irish cultural stereotypes. Searching is slightly difficult because the way the term is spelled is slightly different sometimes: "paddywhackery" versus "paddy whackery", but I have found where this term has been fairly regularly used over a long period of time. I'm finding plenty of mentions in books like this, this, this, and this. However all of that said, I think that this would be better as an overall article on Irish cultural stereotypes in general, since there is more than enough out there to warrant a separate entry aside from cultural stereotypes. Making it slightly more general title-wise would likely make it easier to find in general and feel slightly less limited (ie, we can find sourcing that discusses Irish stereotyping in general rather than one that uses this specific term). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
Week keep and consider renaming I had trouble finding a reliable source that defines it; the current definition sources to a reliable source seems to be OR (see article's talk). After some digging, the best ref I think comes from Stanca Nicoleta, Hollywood Gender Representations of Irish America in the 20th Century: Maureen O’Hara and Pierce Brosnan Hollywood Gender Representations of Irish America in the 20th Century: Maureen O’Hara and Pierce Brosnan (may be paywalled, email me if you need a copy) [18], which has the following sentence: "Satirical cartoons and articles exploiting Ireland - the so called "Paddywhackery" -acquired wide distribution and could be considered, therefore, one of the roots of contemporary forms of popular culture representing the Irish." The journal is rather low tier, I think, but is still qualifies as a peer reviewed source. There is another academic source, Walshe, Shane, 'Normal people like us don't use that type of language. Remember this is the real world'. The language of Father Ted: representations of Irish English in a fictional world [19] (ditto for paywalled), which has a definition attributed to [20] (no Google preview, thus not searchable online and only AGFable without library access): "Share defines paddywhackery as 'Stage Irish goings-on; exaggeration of national characteristics, customs or behaviour; employment of such alleged characteristics in a racist context' (2003:235)." On the regular web, this (Washington Times definition) is the best I could find; related is [21] (WSJ), but note both clerly attribute the word to the Urban Dictionary [22] (which I don't think qualifies as a RS). This is not as clear, but should be helpful. I also found [23], but I am not sure if the site is reliable. Overall, while I think the article sources are currently poor, I think this term is notable. What may, however, be considered is whether or not this should be renamed Stereotypes of Irish people, or be just a subsection in such an article (which should also touch upon the Stage Irish topic). In other words, is paddywhackery a jargon/slang term for stereotypes of Irish in general, or only of a specific subset of them? @MrX, Compassionate727, CoffeeWithMarkets, Bejnar, and Tokyogirl79: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I agree with the rename. I think that the term itself has merit, but it's just a word to describe a topic that's slightly larger but is encompassed by the term. I'd probably support a merge to state Irish or merge stage Irish into an overall article about stereotypes of Irish people. I'd lean more towards an overall article though, since while stage Irish would be considered paddywhackery (if I understand the term correctly) not all paddywhackery would be considered to be stage Irish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (emphasis added). What we have for paddywhackery is a mere mention (often in scare quotes) in reliable sources, and slightly more coverage in sources that are not deemed to be reliable. What we're left with, then, is DICDEF. Deleting this would not prevent the creation of an "Irish cultural stereotypes" article at a later date. Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we assume for the sake of argument that Irish cultural stereotypes is an article that should exist, then what would make it any different than the material that's already discussed in Anti-Irish sentiment? We seem to already have an argument on that already. Of course, stereotypes can be good theoretically rather than pejorative, I suppose (arguable, but I'll concede the point). Still, Paddywhackery appears both a poor article title for an article about those stereotypes as well as a bad redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, a good find. I'd totally support a merge of this to Anti-Irish sentiment, and redirecting Irish cultural stereotypes/Stereotypes of Irish people there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that paddywhackery is something indulged in by Irish-Americans and other people of Irish descent, and to a certain extent by the Irish themselves. It really has nothing to do with anti-Irish sentiment. Note that it is described in the article as "poor representations of Irish culture", not as being anti-Irish in itself. Do we really want to hold up "The Pogues, Riverdance, and the 1952 Maureen O'Hara film The Quiet Man" as anti-Irish? Merging this content to that article and having it as a redirect would be wrong. [Off-topic: I am changing those two new redirects to point to Stage Irish, which is properly about cultural stereotypes]. Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifuzzaman Nomani[edit]

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

Notable for only one event which fails the guideline. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose unless he can be mentioned elsewhere as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but not much. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, per WP:1E; do not pass any WP:BIO. --nafSadh did say 14:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches show that he is only known for the single event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uptech Computer[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Barely scraped through an AFD in 2006. Note that this is not the Kentucky-based startup accelerator of the same name. Vrac (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipieda is not a business directory. This firm hasn't made any kind of major splash, and it just doesn't merit an article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found nothing to suggest better improvement. Pinging the most still active user Kinu. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Abdul Halim[edit]

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

Fail to pass general notability Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:MILL. Non-notable party official/functionary. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found several links at the usual sources for a "Maulana Abdul Halim"s but if at all a better article can be made later. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches showed nothing to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:1E; do not pass any WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. --nafSadh did say 14:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Ritchie333. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All American Recreation[edit]

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

Minor local business which doesn't meet WP:GNG, has been flagged for notability and other issues for 6 years without improvement. Nsteffel (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Entirely non-notable, no claim of significance. Coverage found is WP:ROUTINE. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learning experience[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay rife with original research and synthesis. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another attempt to promulgate this concept conceived by Dr. Jagannath Kuberappa Dange. The deleted biography contained much of the same material, sourced solely to Dange's paper, that was published on Academia.edu, but never in a peer-reviewed journal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly and this article hardly seems fitting for us and would need to be restarted if it can become better. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Greenwood[edit]

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

Autobiography, vanity publisher, no sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Only source is the article subject and Original author's own website. Conflict of interest, peacock... Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Autobiography and WP:SOAPBOX. --Drm310 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tell her to use her own webpage to point out how special she is. HalfShadow 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches on Highbeam, Questia, Google Books return nothing on the subject; Google returns just the usual social media. The listed awards do not look notable; fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the Goodreads award is marginally important. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The linked Goodreads page says "The Barclay Sterling Contest is held by the Lake Country Romance Writers (now Lilac City Rochester Writers)" which feels very local, both by geography and genre? AllyD (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete for now as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability just isn't established here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, search brings up nothing for WP:GNG, article creator is WP:SPA and appears to be subject of article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above me - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King's College London. Discounting the unsigned opinion by the new account Barokpenoy (talk · contribs), nobody wants to keep this. Also protecting. Whether to keep any content in the target article is an editorial decision. Sandstein 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King's Centre for Risk Management[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a centre in a college. No evidence of WP:ORGDEPTH notability independent of King's College London. My merge and redirect to the main article was promptly reverted by the article's creator. - Mr X 16:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to agree with the merge but I'm only finding primary sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above; I have no problem with a merge/redirect if desired (and, since the page keeps getting reverted by the creator), protection of the redirect page. Neutrality^talk 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain page; not only primary sources were given, I could see secondary sources given too. Having reviewed the histories of this page and King's College London, seems like the 'prompt reversion' (which was done only once) was an action done as a result of the 'prompt merge/redirection' done by Mr X. As it stands, the link to KCRM on the King's College London page is more advisable/sensible/appropriate, than

merging/redirecting the KCRM page to the main page. It is best to retain and expand the KCRM page.

Redirect and protect likely if this is the best option. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Institute of Electrical Engineering (GIEE)[edit]

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

Article about a trade association, with a name resembling an institution of higher learning. The website does not even list an address. No evidence that the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 16:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's seemingly nothing for a better article aside from links here and draft and userfy only if necessary. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancy name but no hits in gnews or evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 19:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument maker[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page, but there are no articles with similar names to disambiguate. It would be possible to create a redirect instrument maker (music) pointing to Musical instrument#Construction, and another instrument maker (scientific) pointing to Scientific instrument#List of scientific instruments manufacturers, and retarget the items in the disambiguation page to those redirects, but this still makes only two items, since the third item, Luthier, is not a similar name. The redirects would be enough without the disambiguation page until a third type of instrument maker is identified. On the other hand, there is the point that redirects can't be hat-noted (although the sections in the target article could be). —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is the point to this AfD? Is there any question that "instrument maker" has two valid and distinct meanings and that disambiguation is required between them, even if the two targets are not called Instrument maker (musical) and Instrument maker (scientific)? Nor is this any reason to raise any spurious renames for them! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that disambiguation pages are intended to differentiate between article names, not meanings of phrases. If the page was replaced with two redirects as I suggested above, this would actually speed up the user's access to the information, since the two items would appear as the phrase was typed, allowing quick selection of the desire one. Right now, the user is sent to a disambiguation page, which has links which point to other pages, and not even to the sections which have minimal information about instrument makers. However, my understanding of the protocols for disambiguation may be in error, so I am happy to go along with whatever consensus develops.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two lexically-close terms both being "instrument maker". The only unusual aspect is that both terms are identical but they don't (as usually happens) have disambiguators added (in which case we'd just go straight there). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous...even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles." --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a touch of WP:IAR if need be: the term is so ambiguous that the reader will be best served by finding this dab page to point to the pages about the two kinds of instruments, and can then navigate onwards from the appropriate page. PamD 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems useful and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Wenjun[edit]

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

Advertisement of an unnotable artist. Article was PRODed and deleted. Articles that exist on French, German and Spanish Wikipedia were created by the same user (see global contributions of User:Chaonan); very likely to be cross-wiki promotion/spamming. Wcam (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also possibly COI because the article creator's username Chaonan matches the name of a person close to the artist (Google "Fu Wenjun" chaonan). --Wcam (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:As per nominator, artist is unnotable. Ayub407^talk 15:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links at Books, browser and Highbeam but if possible a better article can be made later. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question. These exhibitions: does anyone have sources for them? (Chinese photographers' articles can be sourced: see for example Zhang Xiao.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article needs to be better written, but the delete votes are flawed because they only looked at English sources (I've now added Find Sources links for his Chinese name). The person seems to be quite famous in China. A google search of his Chinese name returns 130,000 results, including substantial coverage in many of China's top media outlets. See China Daily, Guangming Daily, Phoenix TV, Ta Kung Pao, and numerous others. His art has been studied in many Chinese art journals (see Google scholar results of his Chinese name), such as Yishu Dangdai (Contemporary Art). -Zanhe (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A dreadful article, but the biographee does seem to be Wikipedia-style notable. -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – and copy edit to address aspects of promotional tone. The subject passes WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:ARTIST. Source examples include (translated into English using Google Translate): [24], [25], [26], [27]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is substantial coverage for this article, so it meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPSaaS[edit]

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

Article about a product or service, the notability of which seems to rest solely on a white paper. Fails WP:GNG notability. I redirected the title to Uninterruptible power supply but was reverted by the article's creator. - Mr X 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirecting to Uninterruptible power supply I don't think would be appropriate... although it has the up front aspect of a UPS it is not a UPS in the end. As described, it is a managed power supply for a complex/building/company at the source, which is not a traditional UPS. It's more of an augmentation of the electrical power company that already supplies power to these businesses/homes etc. But, as you said, "solely on a white paper"; it seems to be a matter of WP:TOOSOON because there isn't any reliable sources that expand on this or shows itself as more then a WP:DICDEF. - Pmedema (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a matter of WP:DICDEF here. Ayub407^talk 15:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks even the basic elements that might show it to be notable or even well-cited. It's formatted like a dictionary definition consisting of promotional materials. If there were citations and such to back it up, UPS as a service might be enough for a subheading on the UPS page. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to have adequate coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Concerns about the security of electical supply are manifold, software controlled UPSs are part of the equation, whether these are provided in-house, or whether managed power is purchased, as in this example. The generic topic could undoubtedly use an article, but it would be better if someone conversant with the literature were to write it. The current article on Power management is very limited in its scope. Modern power management system regulate much more than just shutting down or reducing power when a system is inactive. They massage the current, correcting such characteristics as over or under voltages, cyclical variations, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Consulate General in Chennai[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable , consulates less so. Last AfD none of the keep voters showed evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only some brief mentions on News, nothing on the other searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They seem to get regular coverage for vision drives. I found three related articles just by clicking on the {{find sources}} link above. If there is more out there they will be able to pass GNG.

Awada, Vijay (September 16, 2015). "Oz consul-general gives spectacles to students". The Times of India.
Patnaik, Santosh (January 31, 2015). "Australia to fund free spectacles for Hudhud victims". The Hindu.
"'Australia committed to ties with city'". The Hindu. April 16, 2015.

— Jbh ^Talk 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominating again so soon is borderline disruptive. Enough coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2015 :(UTC)

6 months is not borderline disruptive. That is a ridiculous assertion by you. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: You may have been unaware of the guideline at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion#Renominating for deletion which suggests waiting at least two months before relisting when the previous Afd was closed as "no consensus". On that basis, waiting six months was restrained and considerate. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no redirect. It fails the significant coverage guideline of WP:GNG. It can be listed at a future article about the High Commission in Delhi, should that ever prove notable for an article. But in general, embassies, and high commissions do not receive the level of in depth coverage that results in notability, much less consulates. Remember Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found some links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest better so if that can happen, this can be restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found nothing more in-depth on the vision projects or any other substantial coverage. Jbh ^Talk 13:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well, nobody wants to keep, and merging has no consensus. Sandstein 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HBCU Closure Crisis[edit]

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

Reason Broadmoor (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC) This is page is a candidate for deletion because it's simply grossly inaccurate and misleading information[reply]

1.) There's no HBCU Closure Crisis. There's over 100 HBCUs and only three small schools closed in the last 10 years. Please see Defunct HBCUs 2.) Some HBCUs have money problems mostly due to discriminatory funding but that doesn't mean they're on the brink of closing. Actually many studies suggest that HBCUs are still managing to strive and enrollment is increasing.^[1] Louisiana State University, a flagship university, is experiencing serious money problems but it continues to operate and thrive so money problems aren't exclusive to HBCUs nor synonymous with closure.^[2] 3.)The writer of this page stated that South Carolina State University was closed for Fall 2015 which isn't true, that HBCUs lose 12,000 students per year which isn't true, and that HBCUs account for a large percentage of black undergraduate students which also isn't true (HBCUs accounts for less than 15%}. I removed two of the three false comments but they can quickly be found in the history of the page edits. So the writer clearly wrote biased, ill-informed, and misleading content.

I can provide more reasons if necessary but I feel the three points mentioned are strong enough to delete the page to help savage the integrity of Wikipedia.Broadmoor (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://hbculifestyle.com/student-enrollment-at-hbcus/
^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kyle-alagood/lsus-possible-bankruptcy-_b_7149140.html

Merge to Historically black colleges and universities. No need for a standalone article at this point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't deserved to be merged, my comments above validates that. It's misleading and inaccurate information. It needs to be deleted. THERE'S NO HBCU CLOSURE CRISIS, doesn't anyone see this mess?? The author over-exaggerated an sensationalized the money issues SOME HBCUs are having Broadmoor (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is certainly oversensationalized. Most of the colleges mentioned in the article as having closed did so more than 20 years ago, so they should probably not be considered to be part of a present-day crisis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Nothing to show there is really a "crisis" regarding this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anoma Fonseka[edit]

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

A Field Marshal's and Member of Parliament's spouse is not a notable person. Generally wife of army chief heads the Army Wives Welfare Association(President of Seva Vanitha Army Branch-in Sri Lanka). Not a Notable Person and No Important Sources Found KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like she was more than just a wife of an army chief. There seems to be substantial news coverage about her, and it looks like she won some type of national award. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be sufficient coverage of her work in RS. TheBlueCanoe 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. which its passes.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Creek (Queensland)[edit]

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

No sources. —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a local park area is not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not that it doesn't have coverage, see e.g Swift response from firies after couple stranded on car, but it doesn't have the coverage required by Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Parks are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general notability guidelines, unlike legally recognized populated places which have their own guideline. There is also a problem with the name since there is another Boulder Creek in Queensland further south near Gympie, see Gympie to host outdoor recreation forum. Normally, I would say "redirect" to Calen, Queensland, but Calen is far away and because of the one near Gymie that redirect would be confusing. There is nothing wrong with a properly cited entry for Boulder Creek within another appropriate article. While citation to a secondary source is always better, a primary source may be used for verification. If there were notability then a better name would be hydrographic disambiguation by main stream. As this Boulder Creek seems to flow into Omega Creek, that title would be Boulder Creek (Omega Creek) for the creek. For the park one would use the jurisdiction that has control over the park, whatever municipality, forest reserve, or agency that may be, for disambiguation. (Would that be Mount Ossa National Park? If so maybe mention belongs in that article.) Boulder Creek (Approved - N) at GEOnet Names Server --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a substantive article about Boulder Creek Park, "Focus sur Boulder Creek Park" (8 Sept. 2013), in French, by Laure Giraud. There were also articles in two other newspapers about the stranded couple, mentioned above. Still not enough coverage for notability, as I reckon things. --Bejnar (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Bejnar's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Clipchamp[edit]

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak_{(non-admin closure)}.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

I suppose this product is useful, but there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to think of it as notable. As of right now, none of the websites cited in this article are reliable sources. The tone of the article as well is frustratingly promotional. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infosec Taylor Swift[edit]

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

Lack of real world notability, except one or two articles, thus fails WP:NOT. It's just one of many parody accounts. Coderzombie (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Coderzombie. Non-notable parody account. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable entry. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above arguments, and this looks like it'll be a clear 'snow delete' situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above arguments. ABF99 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I support deletion only because there's not an established practice for these sort of entities (I couldn't find a single other case). On one hand, Infosec Taylor Swift has probably received more top-tier press coverage than many people listed in Wikipedia. On the other hand, it's a parody Twitter account, and would seem not to have any long-term impact. If it ended up being mentioned prominently in some context aside from media infotainment and in some sort of depth (as many of the notability guidelines suggest), that would work. But that is not the case.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found some usual links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Change to disambiguation page as this seems obvious and there's no need for a longer AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Strong[edit]

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

While this hip-hop track has attracted some popularity and earned some coverage by devoted fans of the genre, in places such as xxlmag.com and the like, it just doesn't seem particularly notable. The world is full of similar hip-hop singles that get a flash of success yet fail to really chart, get significant press coverage, etc. The title itself is also confusingly generic, being already used for a heavy metal song as well as being a part of the 'Boston Strong' movement. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as stand alone article entry. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete if there's no improvement but CoffeeWithMarkets what about making a disambiguation page as to mention both of them? SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That had not occurred to me. I wouldn't object if another user decided to do just that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any redirect is a separate editorial decision. Sandstein 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpadFS[edit]

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

Notability not established. Sources include the inventor's homepage, their doctoral thesis, and a forum; the only additional source I could find is a paper in an off-track conference that has garnered three citations according to GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Could not find any reliable source. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, this just isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of file systems or delete. Sounds kind of interesting, but I can't find much in the way of sources. I did find this article from Linux Magazine, but that's about all that's indexed on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Modified my vote to suggest redirection rather than deletion, as I didn't realize at the time that we had this list. I think it's better to give readers some idea of where it's used and what supports it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than a few links at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the concept of crash counting notable? In that case I would vote merge to crash counting. -- intgr [talk] 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Intgr: as far as I can tell from a quick GScholar search, crash counting was invented by the author of SpadFS, prototyped in that system, and not more notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Linux Mag source that you added to crash counting could be used to establish some collective notability for SpadFS and crash counting (although I would then redirect crash counting to SpadFS). NinjaRobotPirate rejected that, but probably didn't see the PDF version. CerealKillerYum, CoffeeWithMarkets, Kierzek, did you consider that source? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed, but would agree that if consensus feels that crash counting is notable enough (and it is barely a stub), then this could be merged with it; otherwise, delete. Kierzek (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is independently sourced and merge crash counting with it if it's only used in this filesystem. LjL (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states that "multiple sources are generally expected" — we currently have only one secondary source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medicaid Information Technology Architecture[edit]

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

Unreferenced & promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent references cited, and none found. I wondered about a redirect to Medicaid, but this subject is not mentioned there and there is no information worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stand alone, not notable and redirect to main subject article. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TNT at best because I found several links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better immediate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an agency initiative that may have significant interest in the industry, but little notability outside of that. At best, it merits a mention in an article on medical recordkeeping or industry standards for such things.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verse of Mawadda[edit]

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

Completing nom for IP as requested at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Help_in_afd_process. I have no opinion on notability. shoy (reactions) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC) The IP's rationale is as follows:[reply]

This article should be deleted because 1) It lacks notability: the verse has never figured as one of controversy of opinions or implications. 2) Wikipedia is not a site for petty pro-Shia agenda from chat forums clothed as intellectual content. The article is clearly a Shia attempt to advance their claim for Ali's preeminence--using even something as minute and insignificant an issue, among Muslims, as this single verse. 3) The sources used are at best questionable: of the 9 references, 4 of them are shiite authored, 4 lack page references, 1 is authored by Ibn Kathir (who doesn't support the article claim in his own tafsir). Nor could i find Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's support for what he is claimed to have supported. This leads me to believe we are dealing with false supporting references to stealthily support the articles claims and invented notability.
This article should be deleted for these reasons.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article does feel like a sectarian WP:PROMO piece. I can't read Arabic so I am not in a position to judge the quality of the sources too closely, but I suspect that a number of them may not pass WP:RS. Ultimately this one is probably going to need a look from some editors with a higher level of competency than I posses in this field. I think I will ping the Islam project talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(probably) Once again I feel the IP solved some of the problems they've listed as reasons for deletion (like removing Asqalani). As the article currently stands, it does not read like pro Shia propaganda at all. I'm of the belief that most sura are notable just because of the sheer volume of tasfir out there, and this one seems to have received enough coverage to be notable. I hope the IP registers an account and becomes a more frequent editor. Can you please point out which sources are from chat forums? Brustopher (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree: 1) i don't think it has enough coverage. It has a non-notable and short quote of the verse, word meaning and explanation--all unremarkable. 2) All the pro-Shia info is what is typically found in shia chat forums. User:Saff V. and User:Hadi.anani both seem to employ similar edit styles of taking fallacious arguments from these forums and slapping them with RS references to legitimize their wiki inclusion. Already, i have searched references for some of their statements and found that the content wasn't supported in these references. I am still researching their other cites for dishonesty, but as you can imagine it is a tedious process for someone with other commitments. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they are sock-puppets or working together, but that is another issue altogether.--58.106.225.96 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep IP thanks for your contributions in the article. It is better first log in and then edit articles. I am sure that you know Wikipedia rules completely but I don't know why edit by IP! I added two section in the al-Qorba (relative) section (In Sunni view and In Shia view). You can add more information about these subtitles and complete them. Please suggest more references about Sunni and Shia views until I insert in the article. Thanks Saff V. (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You presented 3 reasons to deleted the article 2 of which has really nothing to do with this AFD and the one which is related seems flawed due to misunderstanding of the policies. "the verse has never figured as one of controversy of opinions or implications. ", this is not a criteria for being notable. As the "notability" says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". So, you would better discuss based on the sources, and as you see, there are enough reliable sources significantly covering this subject.Saff V. (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is clearly notable. Some Refs such as madelung adds weight. Other reasons presented by nominator IP is not valid here and should be discussed on the articles's talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Because the two "keeps" are qualified as weak, but this can be restored if better sourcing appears. Sandstein 20:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. Baxter Miller[edit]

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

This article is a biography of a living person. The subject lacks notability and is not well documented. For instance, there're several claims such as "...he produced what is widely regarded as the first scholarly work..." or "Miller is credited with remapping the historical renaissances..." that are not verifiable and supported by references. This page has been used as a self-promotional article. The only contributor is Dr. Ronald Baxter Miller himself and the only resources provided are his personal webpages. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV policy which requires the subject to be covered out of Wikipedia by secondary sources. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)

Very Weak Keep if secondary sources can be found. He is the editor of the Langston Hughes Journal, has apparently published many articles in various journals, appears to be the leading expert on Langston Hughes, and this publication is cited by 53. While those items do not precisely match with Wp:Academic, I think there is enough there to rationalize keeping his article. The article does need some toning down in terms of its promotion biography language. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The University of Georgia seems to be worse than average at making their internal honors known to the world, but he appears to have become the Donald L. Hollowell Distinguished Professor of Social Justice and Civil Rights Studies in 2014 (taking over that honor from Obie Clayton). That would give him a pass of WP:PROF#C5. But my keep is weak because the sourcing for all this is so murky and it might be an ex officio chair associated with his position as Interim Director, Center for Social Justice, Human and Civil RIghts rather than a personal chair. Incidentally, searching for "Ron Miller" finds some things that searching for "Baxter Miller" doesn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~You can vote only once. You already nominated this for deletion. There're several reasons to delete this article according to WP:DEL-REASON, WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, and WP:DEL9: 1."Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" 2."Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N), and 3."Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons." From WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WP:SPIP asserts that "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received." In this case independent sources are not provided to verify the author's claims. WP:GNG clearly explains that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This article, as it is, does not provide neutral secondary sources about the subject. The only provided sources are the subject's personal pages. Also, searching his name nothing significant appears. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 05:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)

Discussion about user's signature

- Rouhollah, could you sign your posts with four tildes? The way you are doing it now, your user name and talk page do not show up as they should. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder why you're having this problem. I click on the four tildes. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 05:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)
  - It's probably because you're editing your signature on the posts rather than typing four tildes at the end. The tildes automatically generate the links in the signature. Like this: New Media Theorist (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS: you can change the way your signature looks on posts. Just go into account preference, there is a tab there where you can change it to whatever you like.New Media Theorist (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - But if you're going to do that, do see WP:SIGLINK for the requirement that a signature must include a wikilink to your user or user talk page (and read the rest of the same page for other suggestions and requirements). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I added links to the user's account. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two issues here. One is whether this person meets wp:academics, and I would say that on that I would have to go for a "weak delete" - there is one possibly notable award, the one from the Before Columbus Foundation. I cannot find any information about the Daryl C. Dance award. There is a Langston Hughes medal, but the only Langston Hughes award I find is from Washington U in St Louis, (for creative and performing arts), and he isn't listed as a winner, although the site only covers from 2005 onward. Subject is listed as winner of the "Albert Christ-Janer Award" from his own institution -- I don't know if it's recognized outside of the U of Georgia. As another !voter said, his book, for which he won the Columbus Fn award, is cited all of 53 times in G-Scholar, which is not much. The second issue is whether this violates wp:BLP. It has a considerable amount of non-referenced material, which, if deleted, would result in a very small article with very little information. It appears to violate all three of the core policies: NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research. That the subject himself provided at least some of the information here, we've also got a COI problem. There are statements like: "Between 2008 and 2012, Miller has produced three well-respected books, and he continues to present his research to audiences throughout the world." which is unreferenced and decidedly not neutral POV. His position of "Hollowell Professor of Civil Rights" is not verified by the page that is referenced, nor by the person's CV which is linked from there. This means that we have unreferenced and possibly erroneous information in a BLP, which is a potential reason for deletion. The only other option that I see is to reduce it to a stub with the few verifiable facts that exist. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the article could be worse but we can also wait for better and there has been more than enough time for improvement and I also found some links at Books, browser and Scholar but not much extraordinary. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage India[edit]

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

I simply found nothing better to suggest better improvement and this seems more like an indie local magazine that wouldn't have gotten much coverage with my best search results here and here. Although the Barnes and Noble connection is admirable, there's not much for a better separate article and, at best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere. Pinging taggers Calaka and CardinalDan. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It looks like a popular glossy magazine on the history of India as portrayed in surviving structures. I suspect that its equivalent in UK would be deemed notable. I note that it is also downloadable (no doubt for a fee). However, I would want to judge notability by its circulation and we have not data on that. The current article is essentially an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although somewhat weakly. I have found a few sources [28][29][30] which I think are just sufficient (although, as I emphasize, very narrowly) to meet the GNG. However, I would consider changing my !vote in the event of a strong argument to the contrary. As the nom mentions, the article could also use cleanup, since it reads like an advertisement at present. --Biblioworm 16:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entry reads like an advertisement, nothing really notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because zero reliable sources (WP:V) are present in the article itself, and nobody seems to want to bother to add them even if they exist. Sandstein 20:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valor Group Holdings[edit]

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

Appears to fail google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It almost seems like WP:TOOSOON because the company is only mentioned in 2015 in the results. Buffaboy ^talk 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fatz Belvedere[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:CRIME While the subject has a successful career as a backup artist and remixer, that success is not encyclopedic. Notability is not inherited, regardless of how many notable musicians one may have worked for or played with. Additionally, the article is minimally sourced, almost all primary sources with the exception of a couple of local news articles. Scr★pIron^IV 19:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as noted above, he fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CRIME. Quis separabit? 11:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is not acceptable and we can wait for better if that comes. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data Amulet[edit]

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

Whether this is a quantum data storage system or some kind of post-modern artwork, it fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources. Sourced only to three papers by Willard G. Van De Bogart, with no wider Google noise for "Data Amulet", "Solid Matter Hard Drive" or "Solid Matter Quantum Hard Drive". McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - had a weird sense of deja vu since I thought that I had prodded this article but apparently not. Per nom, sourced only to primary sources. shoy (reactions) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this date, there is no press for yet for Scot Forshaw and Willard Van De Bogart's paper which will be presented at an interdisciplinary conference in Shangai next month. (http://www.detao-node.com/conf/consciousness-reframed/) However, the physical representation of a data amulet as Data Amulet Art exists now and I feel it should be included in Wikipedia. The biggest reason is to start with the artwork and then we can begin to translate into layman's terms what this AI system does. In short, this is only the beginning. While highly technical, here is a source on this latest technology: http://web.mit.edu/6.115/www/amulet/Bitmap.htm (Did I add those links correctly?) Colleenpridemore (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not pass WP:GNG and has only primary sources. This is clearly a case of WP:RECENTISM and the article creator should read WP:What Wikipedia is not before creating more articles. freshacconci talk to me 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for a stand alone article at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rotherham#Education as this seems simple enough to where no more time is needed. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maltby Crags Community School[edit]

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

No evidence, or even suggestion, of notability. It could be speedied if it wasn't a school. ubiquity (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary schools are rarely notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rotherham § Education per precedent at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rotherham#Education per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Ahmed alias Raj[edit]

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

As per the tags I've added to the article, it would require a complete re-write in order to be encyclopedic. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the references are self-published; the others don't actually mention the subject. Also highly promotional; I think it would qualify for WP:G11. ubiquity (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not properly referenced, not encyclopedic. Delete now.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I haven't even began searching yet and this seems obvious to where it is not set for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzsimons Life Science District[edit]

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

Promotional, unreferenced and lacking in content Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons proferred by @Rathfelder. Quis separabit? 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to keep this saved in case a better article can happen later. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family Practice Notebook[edit]

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

no real content Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Family medicine, without prejudice to recreation and expansion upon discovery of significant secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is nothing more than an advertisement and link to the topic's website, no improvements in many years, probably actually meets speedy deletion as advertising criteria. Nsteffel (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now instead as there's not much to move and is simply best deleted until better can happen. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 4th Irish Film & Television Awards. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Annual Irish Film & Television Awards 2006[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK, duplicate of 4th Irish Film & Television Awards Quest for Truth (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at Talk:4th Irish Film & Television Awards#Merger proposal, whose proposer is @Midas02:--Quest for Truth (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep 4th Irish Film & Television Awards for the good reasons given on the article talk page. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose if this is better as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4th Irish Film & Television Awards as content fork (same topic) and merge as needed from history, or just delete. @SwisterTwister: I don't understand what you are trying to say above. Do you think that this is not a content fork? Sandstein 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OUR LADY OF LOURDES COLLEGE[edit]

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

Press Release and capitalised article name MojoTas (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11 as unambiguous advertising. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minus the now-blocked socks, nobody wants to keep these lists as separate articles. The content remains in the main article's history and could be restored there, but that's an editorial decision outside the scope of this closure. Sandstein 20:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vice Chancellors of the Aligarh Muslim University[edit]

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

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

Content forks of Aligarh Muslim University which are not needed as separate articles as even with the embedded list the article size reaches ~22kB. Also note that the shabby current state of the parent article does not really improve by forking out different content as separate articles. So why not propose merger? I am not proposing merger as this was already on the main page and reverted multiple times. A WP:CSD#A10 was removed by another user who simply happens to be dedicating a lot of time in such forks related to AMU. And basically, a merger leaves a redirect and the long string phrase "List of [post] of the Aligarh Muslim University" is not likely searchable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Both the list of Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors if put in the parent article will make the article too large. It does not fall under Content forks. It is a common feature to have separate list of Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors instead of having in the parent article. It is pointed out that the list of Chancellor was a recent creation and was not there in the parent article earlier. Both the list is growing which cannot be in the parent article. Thanks.- EyThink (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC) blocked by CU as a sockpuppet of User:Arifjwadder who has also commented on this page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page size on 18:55, 27 September 2015 version is ~15kB with only 921 words (readable prose size). There are no technical or readability issues here. Wikipedia:Integrate! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing now. In the nomination you said that this list was earlier there in the parent article, but the version which you are showing is the version after both the list has been created. If you put both the list in the parent article then the parent article will be lengthy unnecessary which is not necessary. The list of Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors can be in a separate article. Why don not you show the version which was before both the lists has been created. Also, you in the nomination said that the list of Chancellors were earlier there but it is not so. The list of Chancellors have been created recently. Please make your facts clear. Thanks.- Arifjwadder (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Arifjwadder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Blah! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both lists as unnecessary content forks after lists have been added to Aligarh Muslim University. Size of parent article Previous revision of Aligarh Muslim University prior to forking was only 5960 B (943 words) "readable prose size" and 10kB incl all HTML code. Ergo no need for splitting per WP:SIZERULE. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC) (Amended -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the article meets WP:N and it is not content forks. The parent article did not have the list of Chancellors (only a abridged list of Vice-Chancellors was there and the list has grown now) and when both the list is included in the parent article the parent article becomes unreadable with two tables. Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors are different thing in Indian university system. Anything contained in the article must be verifiable and both the articles are acceptable under WP:V. With given references both the articles Topic notability is established. The issue must not revolve around size of the article (KBs and MBs) but must revolve in the readability. See also List_of_Vice-Chancellors_of_the_University_of_Oxford and List_of_Chancellors_of_the_University_of_Oxford. EyThink (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My apologies for not making it clear that the two lists of Chancellors/Vice Chancellors per se should be included in the parent article. I have appended my !vote above to reflect that, and I have included the lists in Aligarh Muslim University with attribution. As is readily seen, there is no reason for having separate lists, Aligarh Muslim University in itself is a fairly short article. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sam Sailor no university in the world is having the list in its parent article. Separate articles makes the parent article more readable irrespective of its size. EyThink (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary content forks. The Chancellors' list may qualify as encyclopedic content, but the Vice-Chancellors' list is just gratuitous detail and possible ego-fluffing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No university has its Vice-Chancellors list in the parent article. It meets WP:N and can have a standalone article.- EyThink (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both list are notable and meets WP:N. Thanks.- Rajib56789 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)blocked by CU as a sockpuppet of User:Arifjwadder who has also commented on this page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, after 2012 you came back to editing wiki through this account and then you voted keep for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aligarh Institute Gazette, and editing the article Nai Umar Ki Nai Fasal which is a film shot in AMU. Any WP:COI here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list of vice chancellors, per Orangemike. This is a really bad example of WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:UPANDCOMING, and WP:MILL. Just because the institution and the chancellor may be notable, does not make the vice chancellor notable. Such positions are usually held by academics who don't publish, but are adept at management. In any case, such positions are very common and dull. If this is kept, it would create a terrible precedent, allowing lists of vice principals, vice presidents, deputy rectors, et cetera, of every college and university. I take no stand on the list of chancellors. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User talk:BearianWhat is your take on these precedents List of Vice-Chancellors of the University of Oxford and List of Chancellors of the University of Oxford.- Arifjwadder (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are terribly mistaken. In India, the Vice-Chancellor is the head of any university. Vice-Chancellor is the academic office of the university and not management head. An university and colleges cant be compared at all. Moreover, this university is a institution of national importance as declared under the Indian Constitution. Vice-Chancellors and Vice-Principals cannot be compared at all.- Arifjwadder (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, the leader of the academic office is a management head. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So??? Arifjwadder (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User talk:Bearian Your comment that the position of Vice-Chancellor is not notable gives me an impression that you are not much aware of Indian University system. Please see each and every Vice Chancellor and you will find notability of every person. I am sorry that you have diminished the position of Vice-Chancellor of this University. India has very less number of central university and its vice chancellors are in serial 25 in Indian order of precedence. Though by your comment the position will never degrade. Thanks.- EyThink (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This university is not anywhere near as prestigious as an Oxbridge or Ivy League institution. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nominator, unnecessary content fork. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are not these List of Vice-Chancellors of the University of Oxford and List of Chancellors of the University of Oxford content fork????.Arifjwadder (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX (the argument is typical of this editors of this subject - a Keeping up with the Joneses mentality that whatever they have , we should have it too, whether or not sources exist or that what the Jones have is a piece of toxic shit)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot you see sufficient sources in both of the article??? Arifjwadder (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, i do not see sufficient sources discussing lists of VCs in depth. I see passing mentions that "X is /was VC". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No source will ever discuss details of all VCs in a single article. And no one will also discuss lists of VCs. It will be separate. Is this http://zeenews.india.com/news/uttar-pradesh/noor-mohammad-takes-charge-as-amus-vice-chancellor_764166.html as passing mention ??? Arifjwadder (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your say on this http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/article1844402.ece. Atleast respect Indian President. And why would any news article discuss lists of VCs in depth??? Arifjwadder (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, http://bhopal.nic.in/bplhistory.htm and http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/bohra-community-head-is-amu-chancellor/article7094237.ece.- Arifjwadder (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I say about those is that they are most certainly NOT lists of VC's. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of a leadership transition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom you are back again with vandalism with this organisation. I know that you don not agree with the given citations. Here the user User:Arifjwadder has cited lot of references which are enough for a standalone article. Also, i concur with User:Arifjwadder that no news article will talk about list of Vice-Chancellors in a whole. In a lighter side, why people will visit Wikipedia if the list is available in another website. Wikipedia is a place where people gets aggregated news sourced from several websites.- EyThink (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EyThink: Please stop your baseless, unsupported personal attacks. There is nothing that I have done that is even slightly close to WP:VANDALISM . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

remerge back to the univeristy article - there is not excessive content in the main article nor sufficient source coverage about the sub topic to merit stand alone article at this time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for reasons argued all above.- Arifjwadder (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have just stated above the reason why it shouldnt be kept: " no news article will talk about list of Vice-Chancellors in a whole". Our articles are precisely based on subject that reliable sources have covered. But that is merely the minimum first criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are sufficient reliable sources which talks about vie-chancellors which I think will not acknowledge because of your hatred of this organization. Thanks- Arifjwadder (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your personal attacks. I have zero feelings of "love" or "hate" for the school. I DO have a growing irritation about the SPA accounts attempting to hijack Wikipedia into a promotional platform for the school. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge List of Vice Chancellors of the Aligarh Muslim University with List of Chancellors of the Aligarh Muslim University and rename article to List of Chancellors and Vice Chancellors of the Aligarh Muslim University. --Human3015^TALK 13:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. The following accounts are Confirmed to each other: Arifjwadder (talk · contribs · count), EyThink (talk · contribs · count), and Rajib56789 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeeh Al-Ibrahim[edit]

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

Questionably notable and my searches found nothing immediately better than this and this suggests he's unlikely notable and this has stayed since October 2005 with basically no significant improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN local councillor and businessman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NPOL, and no other notability claim is being asserted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G12. Anonymous editors have twice replaced the article by text from the link given by AllyD, once in 2011 and once this August, but that masked the fact that the whole article was originally created in 2009 as a copy of an earlier version of the text at the same link (visible at archive.org). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Merrell Jr[edit]

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

The article certainly needs improvement but I simply found nothing to suggest better than this, this, this and this. This seems to have started at AfC but was moved to mainspace by the SPA author. Pinging past user AllyD. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article as it stands is a clear WP:COPYVIO of [31], copyrighted by Music for your Soul LLC. I haven't the time this morning to see whether reversion is possible to a prior version which is clean of those considerations, but it could be that this needs to be a G12 deletion. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Subaie[edit]

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

Sure this is a foreign subject but it seems this is a minor actor and is unlikely to be notable and have considerable coverage and my searches found no good results (not even an IMDb). SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 September 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 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 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) 05:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toka (band)[edit]

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

I seriously considered speedying or PRODding as there's not much and my searches found nothing good but I'm nominating if by chance this band ever got attention though it's unlikely much less considerable coverage as something would've been added and it's worth noting there website is now closed (this article has gotten few edits since starting in October 2004!). SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax article that has done well to survive untouched for 11 years. The title of the TV drama they are claimed to have starred in translates as "Suck My Dick", which pretty much gives it away as a schoolboy prank article. Could easily be speedy-deleted. --DAJF (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned below, the band did have a website at one time ([32]), so the article does not appear to be a hoax, but it's still just a minor amateur band which does not satisfy the basic notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. --DAJF (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if they exist(ed) (there is a Wayback copy of the website), this band doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "TV drama" is obviously fake; the reference to "alternative spelling" in "Tokka" is meaningless, since this would be pronounced differently. So there is nothing here. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At some stage the archived webpage moved to the address [33]. Following links takes you to the page [34], which supposedly contains reviews about the band by NME and GQ magazines. I thought I was on to something that would establish notability. Sadly, if you google a string of text you find that the first review was actually written about The Darkness and the band's name has been replaced with "Toka". I can't find any source for the second review, but I think we can say it was written by one of the band members. Even if we take the rest of the website at face value, it appears they released one or two albums and had one local TV appearance. But there's not enough to meet WP:GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana Chaudhary[edit]

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

Delete because this article cites no reliable, independent sources; makes no attempt to conform to the wikipedia style of writing--instead it reads like a resume. Moreover, nothing in the resume is cited. There may be some claim for notability to be made, but the problems with promotionalism qualify it for deletion. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with everything written above. This article subject is dubiously notable and the article is SO poorly constructed, it's time to torpedo this. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's observations regarding lack of sources and the appearance of promotionalism. As to notability, there seems to be none other than whatever might have been "inherited" from his father or grandfather. So, even if the other problems were solved, we still would have a failure to establish notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious lack of notability--possibly an A7. DGG ( talk ) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, obviously non-notable per WP:BIO. I was going to try to rescue any material that could be copied to Binod Chaudhary but couldn't really find anything to keep. Brianhe (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree there is a lack of coverage of him, and a lack of significant coverage of him. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. The Chaudhary Group, where he is a managing director, also seems to fail WP:CORP, namely lack of depth. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now is likely best and there's simply nothing to suggest keeping a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was an easy redirect to Siglap (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemount International School[edit]

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

This is a contested PROD. It is an article about a kindergarten and primary school in Singapore. There is nothing in the article to suggest it will meet WP:GNG. Based on the current contents of the article, I suggest a redirect to either Siglap or East Region, Singapore, per the standard outcome described in Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 06:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 06:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Schools at this level are rarely notable and this one doesn't establish notability at all. clpo13_(talk) 06:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom unless/until third-party coverage pops up. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siglap per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page has already been updated with credible sources. Shazrinarmk2015 (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Sponder[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and speaker, which is resting entirely on primary sourced verification of his existence without a shred of reliable source coverage to demonstrate his notability: every single "source" here is either his PR profile on the website of an organization he's directly involved in, or an article in a media outlet in which he's the bylined author of the article rather than its subject. Delete unless the sourcing can be massively overhauled. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything beyond social media. Some of the links on the page today are 404. That's not terribly relevant because they wouldn't have supported wp:notability in any case because none were truly third-party. His book on social media analytics is by now out of date (2012 - lightyears in Web time), and there isn't evidence of a new writing. LaMona (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but we can wait for a better article later. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tyco_International#Corporate_scandal_of_2002. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 09:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyco Guide to Ethical Conduct[edit]

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

An internal corporate code of ethics must fail some kind of WP:NOT, maybe WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTMANUAL, or WP:NOTINTRANET if we had one. Curious to see what the community has to say about an article like this. I can envision a mention in Tyco International that it was implemented in the wake of the scandal, but a description of the actual contents of the code of ethics doesn't seem like a fit for an encyclopedia. Vrac (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. Other than a brief 1-2 sentence mention in the main article at Tyco_International#Corporate_scandal_of_2002, I don't really see where we need an article for the guide itself. There are some notable code of conduct books out there, but it's exceedingly rare for them to pass guidelines as a whole because they're so standard. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as I found a few links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Gissendaner[edit]

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

does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators, being the only one in a single US state is a statistic, not a milestone Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has garnered much media attention well beyond Georgia over the years. She is the first woman executed in Georgia in 70 years. Twice this year, her execution was cancelled due to a storm and cloudy drugs. This is hardly a case of one event. She has been recognized by many notable figures such as the pope. Longevitydude (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion should be closed ASAP because deletion will not happen. She is clearly notable. Any search would reveal such. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the first woman that Georgia executed, that too not for actual murder (but for planning a murder). Very notable case.
Keep per above. Subject has received significant coverage -- even the Vatican has weighed in on this. --Non-Dropframe _talk 10:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note-Opposition to the death penalty is standard Vatican policy and does not coincide with or confer special notability to anyone because the Vatican weighs in.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It wasn't meant so much meant as an argument as it was an aside. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the usual WP:GNG significant, widespread, sustained attention in national media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the case has even been internationally drawn attention. Adomnan (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Case meets WP:GNG and has attracted international coverage, including some coverage in the UK. This is Paul (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any redirect is a separate editorial decision. Sandstein 20:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A4 Bath Road park and ride (Bristol)[edit]

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

I apologize as I know it's extremely long!

The entire article was copied & pasted from the current title to Bristol park and ride, Mattbuck had then got it split and so now we have the service number 904 (A4 Bath Road park and ride (Bristol)) and the article with the rest of the numbers (inc 904) (Bristol park and ride) - Basically we have 2 articles that are the exact same and so I propose redirecting this back to Bristol park and ride

As me and Matt disagreed on it being a redirect I said he could revert [35] and I assumed he was going to massively improve/source it but it never happened

Anyway like all bus routes on here 1 service number never warrants an article unless it's in London and is notable which this one isn't, Thanks and again sorry for the long reason!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles and redirect Bristol park and ride to the Bristol transport section. Per WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL there is nothing notable about a park and ride scheme.Charles (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary duplication and there isn't enough coverage to support two articles. But keep the article on the park and ride as a whole, as the sources cited are obviously enough to pass any reasonable requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.8.209 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I recreated this was that this article about the A4 Bath Road scheme had existed for years, as had the equivalent one about the A4 Portway scheme. The Bath Road one was suddenly converted into an article about p&r in general, and this made no sense to me, so I had the article history split and the bath road page restored. If people think it needs to be deleted so be it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Bristol park and ride. It may be useful to have one article, but not one of each separate service. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Artists from the Dominican Republic[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced list of non-notable artists. Fails WP:LISTN. - Mr X 14:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge the non redlinked artists into List of Latin American artists and redirect Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep standard index of people by profession and nationality. Needs a lot of cleanup, but it has no problems that aren't fixable. Should be expanded with the entries in Category:Dominican Republic artists, and any redlinks that can't be supported by a RS that indicates notability removed. postdlf (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, standard type of list. The red-linked artists need to be sourced or removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many "List of <nation> artists" articles out there (see List of Slovenian artists, List of Irish artists, etc.), and it seems agreed that it's a notable list candidate. The problem with this article is it needs cleanup (i.e. remove non-notable artistes and expand the list, as there are several artists in Category:Dominican Republic artists not listed). But that isn't a valid reason to delete the article, more-so just tag it to be improved. -- R45 ^talk! 14:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Hobin[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. JMHamo (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest better here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe & Co[edit]

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

Extremely promotional and unbalanced article created by single-purpose account (PR account?) The company may just pass notability, although I'm not finding much by way of neutral/reliable sourcing. However the article needs blowing up and starting over again at best. Mabalu (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now obviously as there's no better coverage and the article is no more acceptable or notable with my best search links here. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Finlandia Trophy[edit]

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

pretty much nothing ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable annual event, which is scheduled to begin next week. There's not much here because the event hasn't started yet. By the time this AfD is scheduled to close, the article will better resemble the ones from previous years. Crow^Caw 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not in shape yet. The event is scheduled to complete on October 11th. Most likely the article will be filled with the competition results around that time. Seameetsmountain (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was keep. Non-admin closure. Nominator withdrew and this article meets or exceeds WP:GNG with significant independent reliable sources. Many dams, such as the Franklin and Rampart, as well as those in Category:Cancelled dams, are notable. The Chowilla Dam was a large dam with a controversy on the regional/national level. As such, its story and impact should be included in this encyclopedia.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chowilla Dam[edit]

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

About a dam that was never built. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major, major political controversy of its time. It determined the rise and fall of Steele Hall as Premier of South Australia and began the second stint of Don Dunstan. There are a huge amount of sources on it and it's a topic capable of being got to featured status. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rampart Dam is an example of a Featured Article about an American dam that was not built at about the same time as Chowilla. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reason stated for deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator) I was surprised to not find an article about this already, so set about creating a short article to expand on, and chose to start from the geographic and infrastructure aspects, not the political ones, as that is what I am more familiar with editing. The use, distribution and access to Murray River basin water has been (and continues to be) a contentious issue between the Commonwealth, four states and the ACT governments. Chowilla was a significant episode in that saga. Chowilla Dam is quite possibly more notable because it was not built than it would be if it had been. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a precedent in Franklin Dam, also a dam that was never built. Also, I have a stash of material about this particular subject which I was going to use to write a similar article but can use here on this article Cowdy001 (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this report, under looking at it closely, I believe this should be kept. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With one exception qualified as "weak", nobody here is convinced that this topic has received the level of coverage that an article requires. Sandstein 20:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riverwalk riot[edit]

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

The story here seems to be that a gathering of drunken Halloween revelers near a college town got out of hand. The police dispersed the crowd, a few people were arrested, and that was that. The article claims some sort of political protest angle to the riot, but I haven't been able to find any evidence to support this. This sort of thing isn't an unusual or noteworthy occurrence and appears to have had no lasting impact, and thus fails WP:NOTNEWS. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have removed the unsourced/dubious claims that appeared to be obvious. I also moved the page back to the singular title for now. I'm not sure if it is notable or not, but I'm sympathetic to the possibility due to the coverage it received. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Our View: Riot Causes ECU to Consider Values. University Wire [Carlsbad] 04 Nov 2014. Publication: East Carolinian, East Carolina University, Greenville NC. "By now almost every student on this campus has heard some version of what transpired at Riverwalk on Halloween night. As Dr. Ballard and Dr. Hardy said in their letter to the student body, actions like this devalue our education and hard work as students.

We as an editorial staff hope that all students can one day walk into a job interview and proudly state that they have a degree from East Carolina University. We also hope that the hiring manager does not look at our degree and cringe as they think "party school".

Not only do we not want to be known as a party school, we also don't want to be known as students who assault police officers. The police responded to an injured individual at the apartment complex and they were met with glass bottles thrown at them. It shouldn't have to be said, but this is wrong. The only people that should have to fear police officers doing their job are people that are committing crimes.

Ultimately, the people that were involved need to reevaluate their values and see if this university is really the right place for them."

Given that that's the most "impactful" kind of source/analysis I found from a database search, I'd say this content isn't appropriate for a stand-alone article, but is instead better off mentioned at the Greenville NC or E. Carolina University Wikipedia pages. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other Wikipedia articles of riots as or less significant are kept. Therefore we keep it. Ha, check and mate!--150.216.254.205 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article uses 17 sources to source a single sentence, while leaving the rest of the article basically unsourced. I would recommend that the supporters of this article improve the citations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It happened. It got a lot of coverage. There were indictments. And it is being revisited in the run-up to Haloween 2015. My news google search here: [36].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding good enough sources. Current sources in the articles are videos/social media posts, local news coverage, a piece in "Total Frat Move" [37], and a review of an unrelated 2002 album with a similar name [38]. And the event is hardly being revisited, best I see in the above Google search is a few sentences on local news [39]. I couldn't find any better either. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while my keep vote is tepid, do note that the sources currently in the article are not the standard of judgment at AFD. It is the sources available in reliable sources not on the page that need to be weighed in determining notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ash (engineer)[edit]

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

Fails Prof test, low-level academic sourced only to his own university's bio Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although he has quite a few accomplishments, my searches found no better sourcing than this, this and this. Pinging DGG and David Eppstein for comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Google scholar (for author:rl-ash) finds citation counts of 170, 150, 100, etc., probably enough for WP:PROF#C1, and his university has listed him as an "Eminent Scholar" since 1989, an honor given to a small fraction of its full professors that is possibly enough for #C5. Also he has spoken at "manly locations" [40]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard for academics is usually WP:PROf, not WP:GNG. The conventional number of references for showing notability under the GNG is unnecessary--all that is necessary is to show the person is an authority in his subject. G-searches may or may not find anything beyond their official web page, but it doesn;t much matter, because theat page is a sufficiently reliable authority for biographical information. . This is normally done by the citations to the person's published works; for engineers, this is normally peer-reviewed journal articles and, in some specialties conference papers of equivalent stature. A/c Google Scholar, his most cited paper has been referred to 170 times, then 150, 119, 100, 93 73, 71, 65 etc. --in most fields, anyone with one of more papers with ≥ 100 citations is notable. (David E removed the excessive list of publications; I've added back those 3 ≥most highly cited papers to the article;

It is a reasonably safe assumption that full professors at a major research institution are always notable--of all those brought here in the last 5 years,only a very few have been deleted, either because WPedians think their subject field is unimportant, or prejudice against those who have unpopular views on controversial issues. Old Dominion is a research university, though not the very highest level--it's listed at a high intensity research university, not a very-high intensity research university --see List of research universities in the United States. In practice, these too count as major--very few have been deleted. It certainly did not justify the nom saying he was a "low-level academic". An appropriate example of low-level academic is an Assistant Professor in a 2-year college. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, by the logic that a full professor at a research university should be considered notable. Roches (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - No valid reason for deletion - Being "too short, and not very noteworthy" isn't a valid reason whatsoever! - If any editor wants to renominate this I obviously have no objections. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Horsfall Johnson[edit]

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

Way too short, and not very noteworthy ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: ridiculous nomination - "too short" is never an acceptable argument - and we have numerous precedents per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES of bishops being regarded as notable. St Anselm (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumaatun Azmi[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I see only passing mentions in media; claims of significant coverage in the article are not properly referenced. There are no in-depth sources - her activities have not yet attracted enough attention to make her encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Turpin[edit]

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

Very little on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam or JSTOR about this person. There are others with this name. Most of the hits on News were brief mentions, 2-3 articles which had a quote by him, and several press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply not enough for a better article and the best I found was (using "Christopher Turpin NPR") was some links at Books, News, browser and highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 20:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon (music)[edit]

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

I'm simply found nothing good aside from the usual music websites (CdBaby, Amazon, etc.) and mirrors so there isn't even minimally good sources to suggest improvement and this has been edited by the subject since starting in February 2007. Pinging editors Whpq, Mr.Z-man, Nick Number, Black Falcon, Nuttah and Squalk25. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NM. Nick Number (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - my edit was categorization, not content-related. Squalk25 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 20:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Peace Initiative[edit]

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

I haven't found anything to exactly confirm its existence and if it exists, it must not be well known and likely non-notable or even not exist anymore based from the content. This has stayed basically the same and never even close to more acceptable (no better information and sourcing) thus there's simply nothing to suggest keeping longer. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything on this. Found mentions on various African peace initiatives (Italian, Central, North, South, Horn of), but the only reference I found regarding something with this name was this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nathaniel (TV series). General consensus that it is too soon for this person to have an article. No prejudice against recreation should this person achieve notability in the near future. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Masa[edit]

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

therefore are notable in his child actor with WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON doing in their talent from employee. Oripaypaykim (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it is probably still WP:TOOSOON. He played the lead role in a primetime soap opera in a major national TV station. But it's still only one role and can not be characterized as "unique", thus it doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Prior to that, he's only played supporting roles. While there are sources on him, most of it is obviously promotional in nature, in connection to his (then) upcoming role as "Nathaniel". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Hi. Nahirapan akong intindihin ang rason mo. Pwedeng itagalog mo na lang? Isasalin ko para sa yo. (English: It's a bit hard to understand your rationale. Can you just say it in Tagalog? I'll translate it for you.")-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Nathaniel (TV series) without prejudice against an independent article in the future. WP:TOOSOON, but a redirect to his most notable role at the moment seems like a decent compromise compared to outright deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as suggested as this could easily be deleted but as it seems it is his best known work so far.... SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Emmerson[edit]

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

Schoolboy entrepreneur with one article in a local paper six months ago. Fails WP:BASIC, can find no evidence that the "FSHN Industry" award exists or ever awarded anything to Emmerson. McGeddon (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reasons as McGeddon. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) no claim to notability is made (2) there is basically no coverage in unrelated sources. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since this secondary school actually exists, this article should be kept, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 07:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indpur Goenka High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Bharatiya29 (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as its coverage comprises either primary, highly ambiguous sources or nothing more than mentions in a list, meaning it does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources." --Rubbish computer 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly appears to exist and that's enough for secondary schools per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"High schools are generally considered to be notable, but they must be able to meet the relevant guidelines for notability" - WP:NHS. If you could come up with some reliable sources with a some coverage about the school then I would be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. Bharatiya29 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus (which is all that matters on Wikipedia) secondary school articles are usually kept as long as their existence is proved. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say about the general consensus about school-articles, but please have a look at WP:NSCHOOL. It says that a school-article must satisfy the criteria mentioned in either WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and this article doesn't seems to do that. I would have accepted your opinion if there would had been a void in the Wikipedia policies regarding school-articles, but since we have got a well-defined notability criteria so I personally believe that its best to go by the rules. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all know what that says. However, consensus is consensus and that consensus has been demonstrated here over dozens if not hundreds of AfDs. Unfortunately attempts to change the guidelines have been resisted by a couple of diehards, but that doesn't change the facts. Several secondary school articles are nominated for deletion every week, either in good faith by editors like yourself who aren't aware of the consensus or by deletionist opponents of the consensus who are just trying it on and hoping the rest of us won't notice; they're invariably kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The admins at AfD are quite experienced, so I am sure that they will take the general consensus into consideration while taking a decision. Bharatiya29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in accordance with longstanding consensus at AfD that secondary schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Looking for my Father[edit]

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

It looks like there's no reason to consider this episode any more significantly notable than any other MTV episode of any other MTV show. The article currently lacks any sources at all, just featuring a link to a place where you can watch it. Looking for coverage of the episode turns up little to nothing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:37, 24 September 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, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I'm not finding any significant reliable coverage anywhere. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest keeping this. SwisterTwister 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvoStream[edit]

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

I don't see this meeting WP:GNG. A web search for "EvoStream" turns up a lot of hits, but many of them are self-published, press releases or reviews of an apparently unrelated product (a computer power supply by another company). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:07, 24 September 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, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like this just isn't really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The product is probably sufficiently notable, but the page reads like a specification sheet. Since notability is a property of a subject, not an article's contents (Wikipedia:Notability), this page deserves a chance for improvement. If the author (User:BMeiss) would be willing to do some work on the page to improve it and offer citations, that would be sufficient. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are company pages and press releases. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello. What sort of references above what is already presented would be required to sufficiently meet the standards? The product is actively used and upkept. I have worked with the community here to make sure that the page is not an ad but is instead an unbiased representation of the Media Server. We've modled it after the other Media Server entries that are already found here on wikipedia. I'm of course happy to make any edits as suggested by the moderators and community.User:BMeiss 18:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key is having significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. These terms have specific meanings on wikipedia that are laid out in wikipedia policies. See WP:RS and WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless someone wants to draft and userfy themselves until a better article can be made as I found a few links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest outstanding improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was an easy Merge to Rivers State (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of Rivers State[edit]

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

I don't see a reason for a list like this. This can come under a section of Rivers State. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Rivers State agreeing with nom. Target does not have a Geography section, which is a good place to house the content. And no, the pun in the title is no grounds to split. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Merge with Rivers State seemed good to me. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Rivers State agreeing with Hisashiyarouin--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super OS[edit]

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

This is basically a Ubuntu remaster that was active some years ago. There is very little reliable third-party coverage about this subject and the "distro" was relatively short-lived. The arguments in past discussions were quite weak, there is no way this is "as notable as any other distro". –ilmaisin (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It may not be as notable as other distros, but it did gain some media coverage. Looks like it barely passes notability guidelines to me. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. The best ref is a brief lifehacker piece, with only a paragraph of coverage, on its own not sufficient for establishing notability. The other lifehacker ref only covers App Runner; this is a different piece of software, notability is not inherited, and this article does not mention Super OS. Both softpedia refs are just quoting a developers' press release, and as such are not significant independent coverage. A search turned up download sites and forum posts, but no significant, independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While I can't support any of the arguments here for non-notability, circumstances have changed. The website distributing the software is dead and so is the distribution. It was previously blatantly notable (most distributions Wikipedia features don't get the coverage this one got), but is no longer notable due to lack of existence.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was as much as blatantly notable but it is not now? How can that be? Notability is not temporary. --LjL
LjL I wish I had a better answer for you. I probably should have said that its notability proved to be of a short-term nature, and not up to the bar Wikipedia sets. That said, I work in software, and am biased. Unlike people, birds, or castles, the "notability" of software seems (at least to me) to operate differently. I don't learn about notable software in books or peer-reviewed literature (and neither does anyone else). How that implicates upon a useful guideline to editors, I'm not yet sure.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I don't think the notability has changed in any way due to lack of development, but considering that the references lack any depth of coverage or independence from press releases to establish notability, it should just be deleted. Ceosad (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Atkinson[edit]

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

While I have a lot of empathy for indie artists and writers, it looks like this comic creator is simply not notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found one useful source, but that's about it. Most of the other information I've found are Facebook pages or websites directly related to his comic Psychosis. I don't think that's enough to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR or even WP:GNG. His comic is only at issue #1, so I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. clpo13_(talk) 08:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's not much for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Jersey[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted by prod and restored through Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Simon_Jersey, with the WP:SPA creator's comment "Article had more than sufficient references and authoritative external links. If more detail is needed, I would rather be told what, so that I can supply these, than the page deleted. Thank you". I believe the rationale of the prod, which was copied to the author's talk page during the prod stage, was clear enough. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You asked for authoritative links and references - I would consider articles in The Daily Mail, The Times, and The Independent, as well as Team GB, plus Wiki links from both Emirates Airlines and David Ross' pages to be exactly this. The company will be supplying the formal wear that the British athletes wear at the 2016 Rio Olympics, an event expected to be seen by almost a billion people worldwide, and as Wikipedia's purpose is to supply the public with an authoritative source of information on a vast array of subjects, I cannot see what issue there would be with this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcanders88 (talk • contribs) 23:26, September 24, 2015‎ (UTC)

The Times and The Independent are certainly quality sources. TT, unfortunately, is not free, and the preview of the article seem to focus on the company, but someone named David Ross, who bought it. The Independent article is about the company's BUILDING - it's an architectural essay/blog. That lends very little to the argument that the company is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 2 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! 00:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless someone wants it drafted and userfied as I found a few links here and there but not much for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches do not turn up enough to meet notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. As SwisterTwister, userfy if someone is interested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InfraWare[edit]

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

I see nothing to suggest better notability and improvement here and my searches found no particularly better sourcing here, here, here and here all being the best results. The article seems to have been started and edited by the subject themselves and what's more is it has not been improved since December 2008 thus nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Only refs provided are press releases. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely a promotional piece with no RS. Delete per nom and above editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bichón[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack significant coverage (please note that sources used are mostly newspapers from a town of 13,000 inhabitants). Further, the text of the article does not suggest there is reason to believe Mario Bichón is notable (it describes an ordinary live of a state employee). Sietecolores (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN. This bio is a collection of secondary facts: director of a local club, owner of a hotel, and councillor of a small town. --War ko ^talk 17:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN local councillor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are more notable for being the chief of the local railway station and president of the sports club of his city, rather than for being just a city councilor. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of which are reasons for notability. A stationmaster and a local sports club president? Please! Just a local figure of no wider importance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything to show they meet WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, and without coverage outside his hometown fails also GNG Kraxler (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://hbculifestyle.com/student-enrollment-at-hbcus/

[2] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kyle-alagood/lsus-possible-bankruptcy-_b_7149140.html

[1]

[2]