Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 October	12 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vega Strike[edit]

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

Game has been around for more than a decade but it only has one review (an Italian website). There are some interviews with the dev, but there isn't enough coverage of the game to write a dedicated article. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.) (?) It had nothing more than passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It would be fine by me to restore the redirect to List of open source games. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the game is notable among open-source video games, has been actively developed since last century, is included in all major Linux distributions and while the article was previously lacking sources a bit, I provided several secondary sources now (although one has already been deleted as supposedly "not reliable", even though it has a lengthy article on Wikipedia... maybe this is how articles end up without sources). I'm not entirely sure whether the fact the review being mentioned is on an Italian website is meant to be a problem, but for the record, it's one of the best-known computer websites in Italy and it has non-stub articles on both the Italian and the English Wikipedia. A few of the other references are also not really as "in passing" as the nominator would make you think - I recommend reading them. LjL (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A website with a WP page does not mean that said site has any hallmarks of editorial control or journalistic integrity. There's also an article on Reddit. Let me know if you find reviews in more than that one Italian site. czar 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean the opposite, either, but I guess you are the arbiter of editorial control and journalistic integrity... having complete articles on Wikipedia is at the very least an indicator of notability, and if you dispute the sources' integrity, then bring it to the sources noticeboard, don't just start an AfD. By the way, you seem to have forgotten to mention the review by the Free Software Magazine, which was already provided in the article before my edits, unless I can't see right. LjL (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another review in another Italian site as you seemed to want, anyway, although I'm much less familiar with this site (maybe because it's Apple-centered and I'm really not) than with Punto Informatico.

Your sarcasm is noted and unappreciated. The Apple Lounge is very clearly a blog without editorial oversight. WP's guideline on what constitutes a reliable source says that, as an encyclopedia, we use sources that have fact-checking and editorial policies. I wouldn't call FSM a reputable outlet either, especially back then. It's totally normal to take an article to AfD when you can't find sufficient sourcing. The game's received zero coverage from major reviewers. Unless it's some kind of cult hit with reams of underground sourcing, it doesn't have enough material for us to write a full article about it. This isn't news—you're the one who tagged it for lacking sources back in 2009. czar 03:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My sarcasm? I thought it was your sarcasm. Anyway, your high standards for sources would seem to basically exclude independent games (and especially open source ones that "big" publications won't have commercial incentive to review) from appearing on Wikipedia, but maybe that's what you want: an encyclopedia that very strictly adheres to narrow interpretation of policies but at the detriment of useful content. --LjL (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responding to any more ad hominems in this thread. I've written dozens of GA-rated articles on indie games. There are many video game hobbyist websites, which is why WP:VG/RS exists to vet them. It's fine to include this game in a list of open source games because it is known as one, but I don't see enough coverage for us to write a full article about it from reliable, secondary sources. czar 12:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some sourcing available. Antrocent (♫♬) 01:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned in a reliable sources discussion about a source that is being considered unacceptable in the article by the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the referencing seems sufficient to sustain an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, sourcing is weak but just sufficient. ~Mable (chat) 20:51, 12 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 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Nobel laureates[edit]

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), this article was to be deleted. It was recreated without any deletion review discussion and the issues outlined at that deletion discussion are not addressed in the recreation of the content. Until such time as these issues are addressed, this list does not deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is is not the same page as List of atheist Nobel laureates, is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss these matters in the page, "List of atheist Nobel Laureates" , This page was nominated for deletion few years ago and after long discussion, it remained intact.Skashifakram (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion included all lists of Nobel laureates by religion. They were all deleted. I have not seen any deletion review discussions overturning this decision. jps (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange. We have a number of pages in the Category:Lists_of_atheists. What's the problem? Why anything should be deleted? My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion. It's linked above. jps (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Five years later, a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates ended with no consensus (March 2012). I don't know any way of viewing the page as it was in 2007; it may have been quite different than the one discussed in 2012. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that a significant number of RS discuss specifically Muslim Nobel Prize winners, for example, [1],[2],[3] and more. Hence this is a legitimate subject, even for creation of a regular page. The requirements for creating lists are less strict. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have List of Jewish Nobel laureates and List of Christian Nobel laureates (both of which are currently heading toward easy keeps at AFD). There is no rationale to keep those and delete this one. The consensus arguments made at those AFDs to keep those articles should apply here. It might make sense to merge them all into something like List of Nobel laureates by religion. Gnome de plume (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination makes no policy-based reason for deletion. Articles get created after prior deletions all the time, depending on whether a better article can be written. All these lists by religion are only notable if sources make it a notable distinction, as User:My very best wishes reasonably argues.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the same reasons the other lists are being kept. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:04, 16 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 per WP:CSD#G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Tiger (rapper) for previous discussion. –Grondemar 14:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Tiger (entertainer)[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. References are to blogs and self published material. Jbh ^Talk 21:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Speedy Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Tiger (rapper). Blatant hoax and/or self-promotion with self-published fake "sources". Please also Salt King Tiger (rapper) and King Tiger (entertainer) (confirmed sockpuppetry on top of the mentioned problems). GermanJoe (talk) 14:21, 12 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Muhammad Asif[edit]

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

Routine CEO bio, so to speak. All cited sources are non-independent, or mere passing mentions, and i wasn't able to find anything better with a google search. Possible autobiography, at least in part. Does not pass WP:GNG. This was true when I commented on the article talk page some time back, and things haven't improved since. DES ^(talk) 14:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 14:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page commet I mentioned above reads: Two of the sources currently cited in the article seem to be mere lists of award winners, confirming that the subject received a particular award, but giving no other detail. All the rest seem to be the web sites of companies where he is an officer, board member, or employee, and so are not independent, and do nothing to help establish the subject's notability. More reliable secondary sources are needed. DES ^(talk) 17:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) For the information of those reading this here. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable, stretching for an article by magnifiying trivial accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 19 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mina sundwall[edit]

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

Normally, I wouldn't nominate an article so soon after creation, however, in this case it appears to be a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. Clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and the dearth of in-depth coverage in RS means she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only trivial mentions on News, nothing on Newspapers, zero on Scholar and Books (as you might expect), and zero on Highbeam and JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Believe me Onel5969 it was likely better to nominate now because from what I see now there's nothing to suggest better improvement aside from some links News and Google browser and her IMDb summarizes it nicely...some roles including in production but nothing solid yet. If not nominated now, this has the vulnerability of staying here for years until it seems obvious for AfD (I myself am currently going through old articles to nominate, that needed to be deleted long ago). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. borderline notable at best, and very clear promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT and also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:57, 19 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 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost for academic papers. I dream of horses (C) @ 21:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OP, could you elaborate on your reasons for AfD? I expected to find nothing but an academic paper, but see a host of secondary sources. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Petrarchan47, I don't see this as being overly academic, although the writing style borders on that. But the content seems appropriately encyclopedic and the references ring true. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the TPP has been periodically making headlines here for ~5 years. That's too much coverage to be kept in the main article. Maybe the article needs to be tagged for a couple of things, but not deleted. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, per suggestion from User:L.tak on Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership and delete the first part of this article, as it duplicates the article on Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. I created this, because the Trans-Pacific Partnership article seemed too long, and the "History" section seemed a naturally self-contained piece that could be split off into separate article. Some contributors have suggested serious "copy editing" that would presumably reduce that section to a tiny fraction of its current size. User:Wuerzele wrote, "The table of negotiation rounds is long, but the info in it is meager and I wouldnt be surprised if in 5-10 years the table is summarized in 3 sentences". The table seems well documented and might be interesting to people who want to understand how something like this gets negotiated. I therefore favor spinning the table and accompanying material into a separate article like the one under discussion here. Then that table can be replaced in the Trans-Pacific Partnership article with a link to the new article and a 3-sentence summary. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well inside Wiki's guidelines NealeFamily (talk) 03:10, 15 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 ✈ 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kheti Virasat Mission[edit]

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

Questionably independently notable as the best links I found were this, this, this, this and this. In any case, it seems locally known and possibly notable but I'm not sure so I'm nominating it for comments as this also hasn't changed much since starting in September 2008. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good English-language coverage for an Indian organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources show subject meets WP:NCORP, I have added some {{cite book}}s. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:03, 19 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 ✈ 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YFriday[edit]

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

Long-time tagged article for which I found no better sourcing aside from this so although the article would seem acceptable at first, I'm not sure if this can be better improved and with the band now ended, their website is now closed. Pinging author and past user Waggers and I would've notified User:NeonLego but it seems they're not noticeably active. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - there have been several articles and reviews written about this band in reliable, third party sources (some examples: [4] [5]). The fact that an article hasn't been edited for a while is not a sufficient reason to delete it. If it was acceptable at first, it's acceptable now. Waggers TALK 11:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seconding Waggers. Played a centenary gig at the Royal Albert Hall (see also the Cross Rhythms report), reviewed in Cross Rhythms multiple times, co-wrote 'Everlasting God' which remains one of the 25 most-played songs in US churches. The article could do with a trim, but the band's definitely notable, if only just. 3M163//Leave a message 06:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject can be referenced with independent, reliable sources to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. I have added some citations to this effect. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:49, 19 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 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Su-Ling Goh[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable TV journalist with my searches finding only the imaginable coverage at News, browser and what seemed to be one at Highbeam and her show Inside Entertainment (Canada) is unsourced and questionably notable so I'm not sure if that should be nominated as well. Notifying author Fat_pig73. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I honestly couldn't find anything on News, but didn't look through all the pages either, stopping after page 4 - all the results were by the subject, not about them. There were a couple of mentions on Books and Scholar, but just mentions, as well as the above Highbeam reference mentioned by SwisterTwister. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 19 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 18:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little life[edit]

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

Prodded article about potential future series which has zero references. Searches did not turn up anything. Zero. Lots of hits for "My Little Life", but nothing on this. Prod was removed without explanation. At this point, I'm not even sure this is a real show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Our requirements to qualify for WP:RPRGM are low, but in this case I can't even find info to confirm the program exists. I'm willing to change my !vote should somebody find sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax (G3), no verifiability, absolutely zero evidence of notability. For an alleged Disney production that alone suggests hoax (casting the day before episode 1, for a 13 week series?). There are no hits on disney.com, nor on Disney Channel's official web site. It is not listed in Disney's October line-up. The time slot listed in the article was occupied by the end of the Disney movie Invisible Sister, or in other listings by "Girl Meets Rah Rah", the nineteenth episode, now in season 2 of Girl Meets World. There is no claim to notability, but WP:A7 speedy delete does not apply since this is alledged to be a "creative work"; however, if you don't think it is a hoax, then A11 might apply as this appears obviously invented and there is no claim of significance or importance. --Bejnar (talk) 02:29, 19 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 ✈ 08:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Byrne[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shelbourne F.C. as a possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 19:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article seems a WP:COATRACK as it seems to consist mostly of cherry-picked controversial moments in his life, and he does not seem to meet WP:GNG. I am not averse to a redirect to Shelbourne F.C. as a search term. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr Byrne has ongoing coverage of his career in football administration in the Irish press. There may be coverage of his beginnings in the Dublin music scene, I'm not competent to know where to look. He was a controversial character, which is a major reason why he got rather more coverage than the average football club adminstrator: if you're checking search engines, look for him as "Ollie Byrne", not Oliver.
A decent-length obituary in a major national newspaper used to pretty much mean an automatic keep at AfD. There may be non-notable subjects who, in addition to that, have their country's prime minister lead the tributes at their funeral and have an award-winning radio documentary made about their life for broadcast on a national channel several years after their death, but I don't suppose there are many. An Irish Independent piece about the documentary and Byrne in general is entitled "Irish football is in need of another like Ollie Byrne". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple independent, national-level articles on the individual cited both in this discussion and in the article itself show GNG. None on their own would suffice, but there seem to me to have been sufficient "incidents" that he was involved in that generated coverage for him to be a notable person within football. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Struway2's argument above. Finnegas (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage from reliable third-party sources Spiderone 10:42, 18 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 g5, created by sock of User:Orangemoody. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solution Inn[edit]

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

Non-notable web portal (and a blatant PR article). Sources are passing mentions, trivial listings and self-published information. No independent in-depth coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article suggests it meets WP:CORP or any other applicable notability guidelines. Relatively few companies that are less than 7 years old and which have less than 100 employees[6] meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 11 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 g5, created by sock of User:Orangemoody. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Car Leasing[edit]

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

Non-notable leasing company. Sources are passing mentions and a minor branche-internal award's listing. No independent in-depth coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did Google myself, didn't find anything beyond a few minor awards and the usual trivial list entries. Willing to reconsider in case more in-depth reliable sources are found.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence this company meets WP:CORP or any other applicable notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mita Sari Kurniawan[edit]

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

PROD removed without comment. No notability per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject's claim to "fame" apparently being one of 100 semi-finalists in a contest. We need more coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my removed PROD tag, I don't believe this individual is notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm Indonesian and this article isn't notable in id-wiki either. Hysocc (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough significant coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 19 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. Closing as new consensus since there has been no further discussion after two relists. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 08:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bagatelle (literary technique)[edit]

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

This is nothing but a dictionary entry. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a literary form used by major authors such as Swift and Franklin. The musical equivalent has an article, explaining the form – Bagatelle (music) – and so there's some scope to expand this page too. The worst case is that we would merge into another page such as light verse. Andrew D. (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if it can be improved and although my first search at Books found nothing, if it is widely used and common it can be accepted. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:16, 11 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 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Lorite[edit]

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

Non notable actor/writer/director. There was some apparent coverage, such as this from a magazine called "Screen International", published by ILDK Media. ILDK however describes themselves as a PR company specializing themselves on "fashioning entertainment publicity, special events, media relations and brand communications."

I've tried to find the references mentioned at the end; most appear to be offline sources, although a couple exists online but with no mention of the subject.

There are also a few hits similar to this; which seems to be borderline RS, but where the content is user-submitted[7] Bjelleklang - talk 18:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing enough better improvement and IMDb seems to summarize it well...not much. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the external links are dead links, and what is left doesn't clearly establish notability. Of course, the article can be re-created later if the subject's notability can be clearly established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. This is too chatty for an article. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR (or any of the other entertainment categories). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 19 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. Withdrawn by nominator (me). (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Sax[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a minor economist. Couple of minor hits on News, Highbeam, JSTOR, and Books; he did publish some books, but with very low citation counts (highest was 132). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - further research by Sam Sailor shows the notability. I simply muffed this one, it appears. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Don't be fooled by this unsourced stub, have a look at the well-sourced article at cs:Emil Sax: he held a full professorship at the Charles University in Prague, and after it was split in 1882, he first became Dean of the Law College/Faculty (?) and later Rector for the German Charles-Ferdinand University. As Rector he was also de:Virilist ex-officio of the de:Böhmischer Landtag. 1879-85 he was an elected member of the Imperial Council (Austria). Pinging @Onel5969: for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added five English-language {{cite book}}s, they are all from the first page of the mandatory Google Book search. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:05, 19 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn. The article seems to have improved since the time of nomination. (non-admin closure) Bharatiya29 (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human resources in saudi arabia[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Bharatiya29 (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -WP:NOTESSAY ABF99 (talk) 13:41, 11 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 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Shane Avadh[edit]

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

This unreferenced article is purported to be about a hotel chain, but as far as I can determine, this is only a single hotel in Faizabad. The claim to being the Indian division of Marriot is completely false; the article in fact has been copied from Marriott India with some words changed.

As for the hotel itself, there is no coverage in reliable sources that would establish this as a notable hotel. Whpq (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Known user creating NN articles one after the other. This one is a list of claims of connections with other hotel chains. Connections do not confer notability. Each business must assert its own. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than a couple of listing mentions on Lonely Planet, not a single other article on any of the search engines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:12, 19 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. It's unusual for a geographic place to be deleted, but without sources to show it actually exists as a populated place, the only option is to delete it. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aridal[edit]

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

This is yet another in a series of questionable West Saharan placenames. Given the location of Boujdour it's impossible for any settlement to lie southwest of it; GMaps shows a "fishing village" on the shore at about the correct distance but doesn't give it a name [8]. this widely-reproduced map from the UN, however, shows "Aridal" east southeast of Boujour. Neither this place nor the road that supposedly runs through it appears to exist, if the aerial views are to be trusted. There is a salt lake/flat almost due east of Boujour which the caption identifies as "Sebkhet Aridal". The upshot of all this is that it isn't at all clear that this is a settlement by this name; at least the authorities we have are in utter contradiction. The article should be deleted lacking resolution of the disagreement. Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on searches shows this meets WP:GNG and the noms assessment of it as a geographic location seems to be in order. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If no sources can be found and enough time was given for people to look them up. --Fixuture (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article may be in a poor condition, but the place exists per the United Nations (see their map of the Western Sahara showing it), seems reliably sourced as to existence and recognition, thus passes WP:GEOLAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in another discussion, this map does not appear to be accurate. Many of the roads it shows don't seem to exist, and many of the "towns" it shows don't appear to exist either, including this one. A spot on a map is not good enough to claim that a "settlement" exists. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:OR? Cite some reliable sources for your contentions. One expects the UN is a reliable source; your say-so isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be reliable, a source has to be correct. I do consider GMaps and similar aerial imagery to be reliable WRT to the existence of geographic features (but not as to their naming), so if we appeal to some source that says, "X is a village at such-and-such a location", and we can see in the imagery that there are no structures there, then the first source cannot be believed. We have used this in deletion discussions in the past. Besides, it takes interpretation of the UN map to claim that that Aridal is a settlement. The maps in question merely show dots at a bunch of locations without legend, which isn't too surprising since their purpose is to show where UN installations are. Our List of cities in Western Sahara conspicuously fails to give a population even though, being in the Moroccan-controlled aera, it should have been counted. WP:NGEO does not say that dots on maps are notable in and of themselves, and in this case there is ample evidence that there is no settlement at that dot. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep considering that if it exists and is a geographic location, it is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:v Secret (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion about whether the alleged inconsistency of the sources makes the place unverifiable. Sandstein 09:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had thought it well establish that a name on a map is not a plcae unless there is some collabotating information--which can isn some cases be deriveved from them ap, if of sufficiently high resolution. It has to at least indicate what sort of plae it is, Thee rule has been that allpupulated places, resent or past ,are authomatically notble,and Iconsider that the proper distinctiojn. In the absence of any apparent evidence showing this is a populated place rather than a trivial geographic fearture of some part, it fails WP:V. "This is something in the Shsara, but we don't know just what" is not encyclopedic content DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 16 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. The delete argument is based on the quantity and quality of the RS available. Whilst there aren't many sources that are solely about her, the number and quality of those in the Reception section show that there is quite a lot of commentary and using her as an example to make one point or another, beyond that of just look at the pretty girl. The GNG clearly states 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material', which I would certainly argue that the Newman source at least meets. Then there’s the vast amount of Japanese coverage which isn’t linked in the article but has been mentioned in the AfD. Ged UK 12:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiko Nagase[edit]

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

This character is not the subject of in-depth (significant) coverage across reliable, independent sources. (?) Its only sources in video game reliable sources custom Google search do not have out-of-fictional-universe discussion, and almost all of the "Reception" coverage is about series games (wherein the character's mention is passing or incidental). The character is primarily known within—and not apart from—the series, so a redirect to the series article would suffice. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the subject of in-depth (significant) coverage across reliable, independent sources. Especially since the subject is only a series/company virtual idol mascot character whose sole spoken-line equivalent is a hidden message in 1 game. Including http://www.1up.com/features/all-about-reiko in 2006. She's also apart from the series from her many guest appearance after her enormous popularity made her a Namco mascot in general. And I don't even know what would make "out-of-fictional-universe discussion" of a voiceless mascot would be if press reports of her huge popularity and the fans' big outrage for briefly removing her are not enough - a Tropes vs Women video about how Reiko makes Russians beat their wives? In fact everything there is "out-of-fictional-universe discussion" as Reiko's role in the fictional universe of Ridge Racer is just being there (there's no plot). She's a virtual equivalent of a celebrity model, with the popularity that no real race queen (here are hundreds of their biographies in Japanese Wikipedia: [9]) has ever even come anywhere close to. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles on characters just because they exist, but on their degree of secondary source coverage (discussing the character as its own subject, in the vein of the 1UP piece, not an aggregation of every time she was mentioned in a review of a game). It doesn't matter how few lines she has spoken as long as critics treat her as important apart from the series. czar 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's never spoken any line. Everything in her reception is "out-of-fictional-universe discussion", her being a virtual mascot of the plot-less Ridge Racer games and of Namco, and not even a 'real' character for any sort of "in- fictional-universe discussion". Her most important value actually isn't even how "critics treat her" (and they treat her well, like proper gentlemen, praising her looks, with her looks being all she's ever had, except some stated statistics and traits that are prominently listed in her Japanese Wikipedia article: [10] yet here would be "trivia") but rather how popular she has become and then how enduring her popularity has remained for years since the early-mid 1990s (as noted by 1UP: she's been one of the first real-hit female game characters, years before Lara Croft, which is actually historical importance and I'm saying this seriously) . See any mascot articles in Wikipedia, they're here in their hundreds, especially the sports team mascots but also many advertising characters and so forth. Now nominate for redirection to their teams all of the lets say popular sports mascots, except only these that just recently became subjects of heated Indian-mascot controversies and the resulting race-bait clickbait. Or let's do it with all the human models well known for just their modeling, on the grounds that while they can be successful and enduringly popular, and have a cultural icon status of appearing in many works or being spokesmodel for things, and journalists did praise them by name or otherwise comment on them too, and reliable sources reported on them aplenty so all the facts of their articles can be positively verified, but that's still not enough for you so they're now going to be redirected to "modeling". Because this approach is that absurd. Or just maybe simplystop making these frivolous redirects/nominations. I'll write you because I'm so tired of it already. I don't want to do this any more. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 1up.com source is good, its a reliable source per WP:VG/S, and the article is centrally focused around her and covers her in significant detail. Are there anymore sources out there like this one? If so, I'd go "keep". If not, then I'd redirect to ~~some Virtual Fighter game or character list type location~~ the Ridge Racer (series) article. The rest of the Reception section, as of writing this, is largely unimportant passing mentions about her, some of it not even really reception as much as just passing observations about her. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Virtual Fighter game" was it even a joke? Or do you really have no slightest idea what you talk about? --AggressiveNavel (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got my AFD's mixed up, was still thinking about Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter). Fixed. Thank you. So anyways, any more sources with significant coverage? Or just listicles declaring her the "hawtest babe" like in the current reception section? Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore almost everything I wrote and speak in so disparaging way . There is already significant coverage which is why everything is or can be sourced. Many journalists praised her as an excellent virtual idol, and I don't care if you think it's considered "listicles". Unless I missed something I don't think the article even contains links to any such rankings at all, but that's not even important. Not even because nothing wrong with rankings, or reviews, or anything. What is most important by far is the tremendous success of her as a series mascot and advertising character, which as all she ever was, as she's became far more popular than Namco even planned for her, beloved by fans so much they couldn't even retire her. This made her go to more than a dozen games, turned her into a company mascot in general, and even gave her a sister for another series. I'll tell you this, I'm sincerily shocked I had to explain this, but maybe it's not clear from the article. And I also wonder what else would you even except. It's all actually depressing. Makes me terrified for the articles I wrote and makes me not even bother to try and create any more, or to improve anything. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to you point by point because your responses are full of these overdramatic ramblings that have very little to do with if there are enough sources to meet the GNG. Sources and policies are what sway people in these discussions, not all that other stuff you tend to throw in there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly sources were what you called "just listicles declaring her the "hawtest babe" like in the current reception section" after you realised it's not even the article you originally thought it is? Another question, what would be possibly any wrong with such sources, if they existed, especially in case of a virtual idol consisting only of visuals? --AggressiveNavel (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why you're asking me to identify content easily found in the current Reception section, but sure:

This IGN source features a whopping 2 sentences about her, more or less just calling her "sexy".
Here's another IGN source that, while not a list, still consists of only 2 sentences in the body, that more or less just declare her "true Ridge Racer babe" and say "click on the link to see a calendar of her".
Also, when I stated that some of the Reception section "isn't really Reception but just random observations", I was referring to these comments you've re-added. The fact that people don't know her name/identity isn't reception, it's just a pointless observation, likely an attempt to artificially pad the section with content... Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Ridge Racer, the video game series the subject originates from. See comments above. The more I dig into the sources, the more I see there's not significant coverage about her, just a ton of passing mentions of people finding her attractive. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'll contend here that Reiko is a notable character who clearly meets the GNG. While it's true that some of the sources are passing mentions, others aren't; Australian Station's quote "Reiko's wholesome sexiness and huge popularity, it's undeniable that she's a symbol identified with the original PlayStation" is in particular pretty strong coverage. Here's another great source: James Newman in his critical book Videogames writes that "the Ridge Racer series' 'Reiko Nagase' is a case in point [...] serving no purpose other than to appear in box art and wave the chequered flag at the start of the race, Reiko is the epitome of outmoded and unwelcome stereotyping" while discussing gender representation in video games. A Japanese language Google search also reveals tons of potential coverage. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I almost faith in Wikipedia. About Newman's opinion it seems he's not aware but it's not a stereotype but actually a real job, and Japanese Wikipedia even has hundreds of race queen articles because they're celebrities there, with careers and fandoms. http://www.axiommagazine.jp/2013/05/07/professional-japanese-race-queens/ is a sample article about it. And yes of course she's by far most popular in Japan. Also because of the place race queens and idol models in general hold in their apparently "outmoded and unwelcome" culture. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Satellizer's input and the 1UP source, which devotes a whole article for her. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One article and a slew of passing mentions does not justify a dedicated WP page by any measure of the GNG. If anything it means that she's worth mentioning in the series article. czar 23:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call these sources that Satellizer brought up "passing mentions". Kokoro20 (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When a character is named incidentally to a point, without any extra context to assert their significance apart from being an example, the result is the definition of a passing mention. czar 18:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like these sources only talk about her for one short sentence without anymore substance. It looks like we're not in agreement here. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for Czar and Sergecross73. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per arguments from Czar and Sergecross73. 86.44.79.61 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.44.79.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, he/she also voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Tenpenny, another video game character article that was recently at AFD. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are people too. Their contribs are very clearly not limited to this article or even fictional characters, so this is an inappropriate use of the SPA tag. It's only supposed to be used when it would be uncontroversial. czar 12:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it just kind of gives me a little suspicion that an IP with very little edits would just suddenly vote at two video game character AFDs. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree, its kind of suspicious when anyone with few edits jump on to AFD...but I agree that the SPA tag doesn't really make sense here, their edits, while few, are kind of all over the place, some not even in the realm of video games (or AFD). I don't believe a "single purpose" could actually be defined here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I originally tagged the comment to alert the closing admin that the IP's !vote should be treated with caution as they have made very little other edits and sockpuppetry may be afoot. It's definitely not common for someone to directly vote on two AfDs on only their seventh edit, not to mention citing Wikipedia policy and tagging an image template on only their fifth. Adding to the fact that this is only one of those "per [some other editor]" comments that does not forward their own arguments for redirecting, this comment should not be given much weight. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 22:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is getting any ideas that this might be me(I participated in all of the two AfDs he/she did, and we had similar comments), note that the IP traces to Ireland and if you analyse my edits you will find that the times don't correspond to those typical of people who live in that time zone, since I don't live there. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the amount of references cited (a lot more than on the actual Ridge Racer article), her fame as a character & promotional tool (which almost transcends Ridge Racer itself) and lengthy history & amount of appearances (outside of Ridge Racer itself even), I would consider the character to be notable enough for a separate article. I don't see it as adding any value to integrate it into the Ridge Racer article. Sarochi (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You...really can't see value in adding content about the subject's mascot in the subject's article, but you can see the value of the mascot having its own article? I don't follow... Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think if anything someone should take care of the Ridge Racer article before we even get to deciding whether or not this one should be included and redirected to it. It can't be that the Ridge Racer article is lacking in content because it doesn't have all the details on a mainly promotional character. Redirecting now means either losing a lot or turning the Ridge Racer article into mainly being about Reiko Nagase. Sarochi (talk) 13:34, 15 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Coventry Stagecoach bus crash[edit]

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

This event that happened on 3 October (more than a week ago) was previously WP:PRODed, but was reverted. There is not currently any content that meets the requirements under Wikipedia:Notability (events). Yes, two people have died and several more have been injured, but there is currently nothing else per WP:NEWSEVENT that shows that this event has received significant, non-routine coverage persisting over a period of time. Nor citations to multiple reliable sources (there are currently only two). Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to nominate this for deletion. Nothing to indicate lasting notability. Several people per day die in traffic accidents in the UK. The age of the driver could be an issue but unless it leads to legal changes this does not look notable.Charles (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence to suggest that this event will have a lasting impact. It can always be brought back if it does. It did receive a lot of front page coverage in the news but Wikipedia is not news. Spiderone 10:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Charlesdrakew - Millions of vehicle crashes happen every day but they don't get an article!, As sad as this accident is it had no lasting impact , Anyway fails WP:NOTNEWS. –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 11 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. Sandstein 18:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of school massacres by death toll[edit]

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

At first, I was in support of this article, but Millionsandbillions left a message on the article's talk page saying it was created from the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article without a proposal even being made and a consensus being reached in the latter's talk page. He also stated that the article goes against WP:NOTCENSORED and that redacting perpetrators' names makes the article less informative. I propose that this article be deleted and the original list restored, with any necessary changes that satisfy both parties. Versus001 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – I don't believe the names of the perpetrators are being "redacted". The original page didn't even mention the name of the massacre, which is what the page should be about. The original page gave requirements to how someone could get on the list (by killing two or more people). Most of the names given in the original page also simply redirected to the main page of the massacre, not an actual page of the perpetrator. The new page is more neutral and gives people the chance to be informed about individual events instead of it just being a pointless "killer scoreboard." Alvandria (talk) 0:24, 3 October 2015

You still did not propose the article first and try to get a consensus, which is how things are reached in Wikipedia if there's a content dispute. Versus001 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let me also note that WP:DUE needs to be taken into consideration here. Versus001 (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely useful, especially since the Federal (United States) government is legally prohibited from keeping such information in one place. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the federal government's listing of such mass shootings has anything to do with this. If you want a list like the one provided in the article, you can go here. Versus001 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and restore the now redirected List of rampage killers (school massacres) - This new page was created unilateraly without any form of discussion or attempt at consensus building first thus violating WP:CON. The perpetrators' names have clearly been redacted because they no longer appear anywhere on the new List of school massacres by death toll page. Not only that, but because the creator of the new page decided to usurp a new page title instead of executing a regular page move the entire edit history of the old List of rampage killers (school massacres) has been lost. Thus it looks like there was a concentrated effort not just to remove the perpetrators' names from the current revision of the article but to make it look like they were never there in the first place. Although the new article does link to some articles about some of the specific events, I do not think it is unreasonable to also include the perpetrators' names somewhere in the article, especially seeing as there are several massacres listed on this article that do not even have a Wikipedia page of their own and thus a reader who was interested about the perpetrators themselves would have to go to the references to find out who they actually were. As I noted on the article's talk page this is not a stand-alone article but a sub-article of the List of rampage killers parent article. It was split out from the parent article in this edit because the "School Massacres" section became too large to have in the parent article. The original article did not give "requirements to how someone could get on the list (by killing two or more people)." Rather it is to limit the cases the can be added to the List of rampage killers and its various sub-articles. Originally the List of rampage killers and its sub-articles also contained so-called "massacres" where nobody was killed, such as the Ansbach school attack. Some of thes so-called "rampage killers" who killed no-one where still alive and this raised WP:BLP concerns. It was eventually decided through ths discussion and this discussion, as well as the subsequent deletion discussion, that the List of rampage killers and its sub-articles would only contaion cases of rampage killers that managed to have two or more fatal victims. It is a guideline for inclusion not an incitement to get on a killer scoreboard. Another similar article, the List of serial killers by number of victims has a guideline of someone "who murders three or more people" and ranks the perpetrators by number of victims thus making the article look like a so-called "killer scoreboard." The List of serial killers by number of victims also does not censor the various serial killers' names. Thus, seeing as there are other similar articles to the List of rampage killers and its sub-articles, I fail to see how the original List of rampage killers (school massacres) article violated WP:DUE or WP:NPOV. In fact it could be argued that the new List of school massacres by death toll article, by redacting the perpetrators' names, gives WP:UNDUE weight to the theory that spree killers seek fame and / or notoriety and that by never mentioning their names would prevent these crimes from happening. But if you look at List of rampage killers (Asia) you will see that there are several masacres that occurred inside China where not only are the perpetrators never mentioned by name but entire massacres go unreported due to fear of copycats. This suggests that the theory that not reporting a perpetraor's name will increase public safety is a WP:FRINGE theory. Also please note that List of rampage killers (school massacres) still redirects to List of school massacres by death toll. It would be reasonably to assume thatanyone who either clicks on that redirect or searches for it would want a list that includes the rampage killers themselves, not just the events. Thus making the new list useless for those users. Also. the List of rampage killers gives its definition of a rampage, it (to quote the page itself) "involves the (attempted) killing of multiple persons least partly in public space by a single physically present perpetrator using (potentially) deadly weapons in a single event without any cooling-off period." So terrorist attacks and state violence are both not considered rampage killings, but this new article adds terrorists attacks such as the Beslan massacre and Peshawar massacre as well as incidents of state violence such as the Kent State massacre thus making this new article even more useless for those who reach it through the List of rampage killers (school massacres) redirect. Please note that I am not opposed to altering the List of rampage killers (school massacres) or any of the other List of rampage killers pages, like make the default sort by date instead of death count, or by removing the number column so the lists no longer look like leaderboards (which I mentioned in this discussion here). The reason why I haven't made any changes to the structure of these articles myself is that there are twelve separate articles that would have to be redesigned and I would find this tedious. I do support redesigning these articles to remove their flaws but removing all the perpetrators' names is the worst way to go about it. Also I apologize for taking so long to reply, I did not have internet access for two days and was unaware that a deletion discussion was started about my previous talk page remark. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this kind of format has not been applied to all the other similar articles, and I cannot see why this topic has to be so special. Warner Sun (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no basis for removing--there seems to be a dispute over whether the names of the perpetrators are needed. That's not a question for CSD. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The move to this page appears to have been a very biased move by Alvandria. Not only has she created this page without consensus, under a very thin and almost accusative reasoning ("This article states 'To be included you must kill at least two dead.' I'm redirecting this to a more neutral version where the names of the perpetuator aren't in the limelight."), she has not, at the very least, applied the same sort of style to other rampage killer lists. If what she reasons holds up, then there is no reason for the school massacres article to be the only one with this kind of setup. I asked her if she could do that before I realized what this page was and nominated it for deletion, and she said she will. Yet, I have seen nothing of the kind; I don't know if it's unwillingness or obliviousness or whatever, but her special treatment of the school massacres sounds sketchy at best. Versus001 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG. AfD is not the content dispute resolution forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that the original page at List of rampage killers (school massacres) has been restored the new page at List of school massacres by death toll should still be deleted as it violates WP:POVFORK. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There are already pages that are similar to this one and have no need of being a list to know about. This list could be controversial to some users as well. There is also no need to add names to a list of massacres, as a avid-user I would rather not see the name of a infamous criminals doings, a very dark matter. Also it is noticeable for users to defend their articles from being deleted, and the relationship with this article seems to be a single-editor ownership, which is concerning. Consider having a Neutral standing-point when creating articles and shying away from articles that may lead to other topical talks like this. And no offense, it does look like a scoreboard of the most dis-honest criminals from this side of the barnyard. Adog104 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Including the names or not is something that should be discussed on the content dispute resolution forum first. Versus001 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, thank you! Adog104 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

You're welcome. But in the meantime, the fact that this article was created without any discussion first (plus all the other points made by Millionsandbillions) needs to be taken under consideration, hence why this deletion discussion was brought up in the first place. Versus001 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the only rampage killer article that's been edited like this and not the others. Can't see why this has to be special. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:DGG. This seems to be a dispute about article content masquerading as a deletion discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- This is not just a dispute about article content. It's also about the fact that this was created without even an attempt at starting a discussion about it first, and what Adog104 said about the article having a "single-editor ownership" type of deal.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists are useful. and should not be deleted if not needed, only if list not needed. this list seems useful.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But not when there's a nearly identical list already in place. Warner Sun (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too much overlap, and two victims seems too few to constitute a massacre. "Two" are too few to be characterized as "several". If several people have not been killed, why call it a massacre? seems an effort to overemphasize such school shootings. Also, "massacre" implies larger intent.Parkwells (talk) 13:55, 15 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 Procedural close, article restored to a redirect. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Wedeking[edit]

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

Nothing significantly has changed since the June 2014 discussion version other than we have an editor who will edit war uncivilly to re-store this. Adding Table M for the purpose of who succeeded him doesn't show coverage of Wedeking which was the issue before. Suggest redirect again and if edit warred again, protection. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, so it's a fact that he's not listed as being the OLM at the time? DN-boards1 (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the box at the bottom of this page with the words "Oldest recognized living man" and the table labeled "Oldest man in the world since 1899"? People saw it then and didn't care. What's changed other than the fact that you are here to insult and fight everyone to get your way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow here. Are you saying his name is NOT in the box? And I apologize for my lack of civility. DN-boards1 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start over. I'm pointing out that he was listed as the OLM in June 2014 as the June 2014 version of the article included that information. That information was in the article and was visible to the people who discussed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Wedeking. It was decided in June 2014 that the article should be redirected. You've decided to ignore that discussion and restored basically the exact same article with the addition of a link to Table M. The general presumption is that there is some closure to discussions and if you want to object to a discussion or argue for reconsideration, that belongs at WP:DRV not here and not by just restoring it repeatedly. Are there additional sources that people here should consider? Is there anything that resolves the concerns expressed last year? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time and I can find some RSes. We can userfy in the interim, if you like. DN-boards1 (talk) 07:55, 11 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 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Hutt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Zero reliable source coverage. Antigng (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. All sources are non-independent.--Thomas.Lu (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG - searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 18 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 00:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brockington Bost[edit]

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

This is a two-sentence article about a local politician that fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E; the only piece of information in the article aside from her name, birthyear, and office is her criminal conviction. –Grondemar 05:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am usually a huge inclusionist, but there is barely anything on her in Google and an article that consists of a name and mention of a conviction is a BLP violation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote me the "mention of a conviction" rule. The rule I know of is to not write about people charged with a crime, who have not been convicted. You might want to check out Category:People by criminal conviction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A credible claim of notability, backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources in the article already in addition to other sources available online. This is a work in progress and substantial progress has already been made by editors in expanding this article since the AfD was begun. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for the work expanding the article and finding sources, but I still don't see how she meets either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BLP1E. Aside from basic biographical details all the information in the article is negative which doesn't exactly make me comfortable when dealing with a BLP. –Grondemar 00:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG easily. She was in news 1994, again in 2002, and again in 2010. Not a WP:BLP1E issue. She was the first female African-American to serve as Mayor of Irvington, New Jersey in 1994. She was the first African-American to head the Women Mayors Division of the United States Conference of Mayors. All have nothing to do with the crime she was convicted of in 2002. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tend to agree with Drover's wife that there are BLP concerns. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An elected mayor of a city of over 50,000 who was sentenced to, and served time in, Federal Prison. This makes the subject a notable public figure in New Jersey history. Adequate sources already showing in the footnotes for a GNG pass; also passes the POLITICIAN SNG based on the mayoralty, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sorts of New York Times hits on this, including THIS. Get rid of the middle name to expand Google hits. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of snowy keep All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - "An elected mayor of a city of over 50,000 who ... served time in, Federal Prison." and has refs, works for me. Victuallers (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've gone back and forth on this but comes down to she is notable. First female black mayor of Irvington, New Jersey and first to head federal mayors conference are accomplishments. Her convictions are public record, not opinion, nor simply charges. Don't see that the article unduly focuses on the negative. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 14 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. Ged UK 12:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunabeats Worldwide[edit]

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

Fails GNG. advert for self-published, no assertion of notability. (Part of promo / COI cleanup.) Widefox; talk 09:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this were only on internet radio I would say delete, but the satellite radio broadcast on Sirius means it reaches a sufficiently wide audience to be notable. Lack of sources in the article isn't grounds for deletion if sources do exist, and my opinion is that the listing of scheduled broadcast times is an "assertion of notability." Roches (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand where you're coming from in broad terms. In terms of policy/guidelines notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Sirius XM Radio. (We can redirect to there.) Widefox; talk 17:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG and no claim of notability. Article is totally dependent on primary sources. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above and the many problems listed on said page, which I cannot see disappearing any time soon due to a lack of reliable secondary and tertiary sources. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:43, 20 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. Serious concerns about the veracity and verifiability of this (entirely unsourced) content remain. To the extent there is a real and notable historical person to be covered here, the article may be recreated, with sources, and preferably by an experienced editor. Sandstein 18:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Campbell von Laurentz[edit]

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

I cannot be 100% certain, but I suspect that this article is a hoax. Pretty much everything looks wrong here, without counting the total lack of sources.

There was no Colonial Treasurer known as Pieter Laurentz Campbell and Alexander Macleay never was Governor of New South Wales.
Even if he did have some German ancestry, I find it highly unlikely that an Australian subject would go and fight for the Prussians.
If he was “the” hero of the Battle of Gravelotte he would have been able to secure a mention in that article or, at least, an article in the German Wikipedia.
How could the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha offer a Scottish title is beyond my imagination.
I have never heard of Prince Arthur being referred to as “Lord Strathearn” and I cannot see from what position he could object to such a petition.
The only place I found containing the image (apart from Wikipedia mirrors) was a forum post in which someone expresses their frustration about this very article.
These are the contributions of the creator

The Traditionalist (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not a hoax by the look of these news articles [11] but his title was controversial (there are claims in one article that he was a Campbell, but not of the Campbells of Craignish, and while the title is a Scots name, it was considered 'foreign' because of who awarded it). The article needs a rewrite to get the facts sorted out (he did have a military career but no mention of Gravelotte). After that there may be a notability question. AnonNep (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not a hoax, but it manages to muddle together two brothers, Ronald Macleay Laurentz Campbell, Freiherr von Craignish and Edmund Kempt Campbell, Freiherr Campbell von Laurentz, both of whom were apparently equerries to Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and awarded their titles by him. The two brothers both gained official permission to use their titles in Great Britain (with "Freiherr" translated as "Baron"). The person born in 1836 was Ronald (Edmund was born in 1848). The motoring writer seems to have been Edmund's daughter-in-law. For references, see this, this and this. A "Lieutenant Campbell of Craignisch" did fight on the Prussian side at Gravelotte (see this and this) - he was quite likely one or other of the brothers (several years before either got their titles, but either could have been using it to specify the branch of the Campbells to which they belonged) but I have not found anything even purporting to verify this. I doubt whether any of this even really starts justifying the notability of either brother, but it is possible that further searching will find something more substantial. PWilkinson (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 11 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 List of Italian supercentenarians#People. In closing this I have had to take into account that one of the Keep votes is a blocked sock, and another is a SPA that is almost certainly another. However, redirecting does not preclude the article as being re-established as a stand alone one if better sourcing is found. Also, there are are least three targets for the redirect suggested (such is the convoluted collection of articles on gerontology here) so if someone wishes to change the redirect, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Todde[edit]

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

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

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

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

Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), the consensus is that being the World's Oldest Person in and of itself is insufficient for determining if the person should have a stand-alone article. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards. While there are multiple reliable source here, as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), the sources here are all obituaries, making the coverage more line with being WP:ROUTINE than actually passing WP:GNG. The content could be merged into another of the mini-bios found at List of Italian supercentenarians#People. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your standards of notability give the impression you think you WP:OWN the site's longevity pages. He has had PLENTY of coverage, and your standards =/= Wikipedia's standards. The oldest living man at the time of death is meaningful IMO. You ONLY nominated it because I mentioned it in another AfD, and Todde is the 16th oldest verified man ever. DN-boards1 (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm basing this on the prior discussions which have been pretty consistent to me. If you think they were wrongly decided, that's for deletion review. Basically the only information of any note about him is birth and death dates. The rest is basically trivia about his life and that's not enough for a separate article about him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just call someone's LIFE "trivia"? That seems VERY arrogant. He's a person, not a footnote. He had a life, detailing it is not adding trivia. You literally just called his life "trivia". DN-boards1 (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just going to be argumentative, I'm not going to waste any more time with you. The prior discussions show a clear consensus that few people here find these kinds of articles sufficient in line with the policies here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator took the words right out of my mouth (or at least borrowed a few from my own nominations). Canadian Paul 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interject here that, in general, I think the more useful distinction is not (as usual at AfD) notability, but WP:NOPAGE. I suspect that many supercents will be notable via multiple-source coverage etc., but a standalone article for each isn't warranted because there's so little to say about them, and they're better-presented in a larger context such as a list -- again, see NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a much more concise (and better-worded) way to phrase some of the rationales I have been giving. Thanks. Canadian Paul 21:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get my bill. EEng (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The points above about WP:NOPAGE and WP:ROUTINE are well-taken, and the rationale in the two AfD's cited in the nom seem entirely on point. The nominator has suggested the appropriate global solution. Some day, we should have mini-bios on list pages for these sorts of people. The phenomenon of human longevity is encyclopedic. The anointing of "winners" and "title-holders" in this suite of articles has long been a plague on the project, elevating hobbyist's interests in "incumbents" and "successors" over the legitimate wiki-coverage of human longevity. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The result and implications of the Koto Okubo AfD are being misrepresented and used as a tool to unfairly override long-standing consensus. The general consensus for a long time seemed to be that World's oldest people and World's oldest men titleholders are notable enough for a standalone article (and quite frankly, common sense dictates that being the world's oldest man out of several billion is noteworthy). Koto Okubo's case was different and unusual, however: firstly, she was never the world's oldest person (only the world's oldest woman). Secondly, she received an unusually small attention from the media, hence there really wasn't much to write a biography about. For Antonio Todde, this is a bit different. More sources, other than obituaries, may well exist.-- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you point to those "long time" consensus discussions? In the Okubo discussion, I noted that it was a merge consensus in 2012 based on being the oldest woman in Asia but it was just repeatedly ignored. In 2015, the oldest woman was not sufficient. People refusing to discuss and reverting it repeatedly is not consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will no doubt get tagged as an "SPA" but can I point out that everyone who has voted "delete" is/has been involved with longevity-related articles and the WP:BATTLEGROUND that currently exists there, so please take that in to consideration. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect that having Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts up may affect things as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the opinion of Ollie231213. I think this article meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.--Inception2010 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973 NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am disappointed to see that many of you do not seem to take the trouble to do some proper research before you nominate articles for deletion; again, it is wrongfully suggested that a world's oldest man did not receive/gain media attention during his life; in fact, a simple search in Google News conjures up a plethora of matching articles - all of which were published when Mr. Todde was still alive! Just to cite a few: [12], [13]http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf09122000_033], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. I will be more than happy to post more sources if necessary. On top of that, as these sources come from multiple countries/languages (Italian, Spanish, Dutch, and Flemish), they also prove that Mr. Todde was notable outside his native country as well. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD template on the page explicitly directs editors that they can improve an article while the AfD discussion is pending. While doing so only helps if the "improvements" are from multiple, independent reliable sources, rather than simply "piling on" "sources" that simply repeat this same material from successive birthdays and then obits, it's more constructive than merely dumping these alleged improvement sources on the AfD page. David in DC (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD has become the subject of off wiki canvassing on the 110 club forum (see here: replace & with fullstops ( z3&invisionfree&com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=13501&view=findpost&p=22134972 ) where a ryoung122 is encouraging 110 club users to vote 'keep'. I have added the notavote tag. CommanderLinx (talk) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

When you refer to "a" ryoung122 you mean, of course User_talk:Ryoung122#September_2012. I don't see canvassing at the link you provide, but I certainly would believe it's happening. EEng (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once again, why is this notable when he does not even qualify to feature in List of the verified oldest people (top 100). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's in the List of the verified oldest men. Women live longer than men. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:27, 19 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casey McKee[edit]

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

Questionably notable artist as my searches found few results with the best here, here, here and here. So unless this can be better sourced and changed after existing the same since October 2008, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete has won no major awards nor is there evidence of significant peer recognition. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per WP:CREATIVE, r the question is whether her art works in the permanent collections of museums are in major museums, and I would be equally able to argue it in either direction. On balance, I think they probably do count as major. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 17 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangam[edit]

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

While this organization appears to be quite large, I could only find one instance of significant coverage for it, and even then, it doesn't appear to be coverage that could establish notability. If there is any coverage in Hindi that I may have missed, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found some links at News, Books and browser, there's nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches could not find enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 19 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. An almost overwhelming consensus to keep here. There are contentions from a couple of users that there are no sources, or that there are sources but that they are of an insufficient quality, however these views do not seem to have found wide support amongst participants in the discussion. It should also be noted that the article has been significantly expanded since nomination, with the addition of many new references. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise[edit]

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

Not that notable a sketch. I went through seven pages of Google hits and all I found was this, this, and this. Now, there is also this book, published by UP of Mississippi by a moderately known scholar of American popular culture--but that's the only "real" source to claim it's one of SNL's most popular sketches, so I'm not all that impressed with it. So, at best we have one published source and a few mentions, nothing more than mentions. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just have to alter search parameters to find loads of sources. Examples: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per being one of the most notable (and funniest) of the Saturday Night Live sketches ever, by its incorporating as a comedy device one of the most notable franchises ever. Indeed, while what was first nominated might have been seen as not in-depth or well sourced enough, what we now have is a well-sourced, incisive article that serves Wikipedia and its readers. Sorry Drmies, but while your original evaluation might have had merit, the topic is now shown as definitely notable. Kudos to Cirt for his diligence in expanding his search parameters and for efforts in fixing this one up. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Update: I have significantly performed a great amount of effort on research and writing for a Quality improvement project on this article. Please see this version of the article and assess its quality and whether or not this version after my Quality improvement efforts should be deleted from Wikipedia. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by the details in the article as a result of the expansion. The Woodward book is an especially meaty source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saturday Night Live (season 1). While I appreciate that someone has put significant work into this piece recently, I have to agree with Drmies that it's just not that notable. It's already mentioned in the SNL first season article, and I think there is sufficient source material to expand that reference somewhat; but I don't see enough truly in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant its own article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos to Cirt for their work. I was ready to withdraw, but while the article looks very impressive I'm still not that convinced. The AV club references, for instance--the one is totally shallow, the other has just one paragraph on our subject. Erik, you say that the Woodward source is "meaty", but at closer inspection it's really not that substantial: it's a biography of Belushi, who played the main part, so I suppose we can expect coverage--but it's hardly in-depth. It has three short sentences on the background, a paragraph on the rehearsal, and a summary of the skit, but no discussion of its effect or popularity or anything like that. So even while Dunne, cited once, says "one of SNL's most famous sketches", I still see not much evidence for that. I mean, CNN and the AV Club and Dunne as well claim it is, but it sounds as if there's some parroting going on here. So I still think a merge is the best solution. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant coverage is one of the criteria, and that is less stringent than "in-depth" coverage, which is not in the general guidelines. I say "meaty" in the sense that the Woodward book addresses the skit directly and in detail, even if it is not the main topic, being its own chapter or section. This and the other sources come together to be an article that I don't find worth merging elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorJoeE, the appropriate guideline is WP:SIGCOV, which states, "'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." It has a footnote that says a one-sentence mention of a band in a President's biography is "plainly trivial". Surely the sources here address the topic directly even if it is not always the main topic in the material. In addition, merging to Saturday Night Live (season 1) would only swamp that article with details of only one skit. Per WP:SPINOFF, "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." I hope you'll consider this. A lot of good detail has been added here that cannot really be merged elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are essentially saying is that the article has become too long to merge -- in the same sense that the bank conglomerates were "too big to fail" when the housing bubble burst. Again, I understand that a lot of effort has been expended, and I'd hate to see that go to waste; but I still don't see enough "significant coverage" to satisfy notability guidelines and justify keeping it as a standalone article. Consensus seems to be drifting the other way, though. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it appears based on these threaded comments, above, that perhaps some from this AFD have yet to revisit the expansion and great deal of effort I've put into further research to improve the quality of this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination had merit when first placed, but the article has been completely overhauled since then and now demonstrates notability. Miyagawa (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject rockets across the verifiability and notability thresholds. (I sense snow in the forecast.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article displays a clear merit for notability. Z105space (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voters keep saying that there is "clear merit" and "easily passes notability guidelines" -- but saying so doesn't make it so, and so far, nobody is offering any new source material to support that contention; and the old material, as Drmies demonstrated above, doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. I thought the sketch was funny too, but it's hardly immortal material. All of that said, I don't really care; keep the article if you want -- but this sort of subject matter is hardly "encyclopedic" by any definition that I'm aware of, and IMHO won't stand even the most liberal test of time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article in its current improved and expanded state addresses Themes, addresses Reception, and notes that many different sources call it one of the best sketches of all time. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable, and Cirt has managed to find many sources for this (maybe not from now, because this was 40 years ago, but if you use JSTOR, sources quickly pop up). Epic Genius (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because I'm drawing 0 hits on JSTOR. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe I should look at it myself... Epic Genius (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sigh, not every single source is going to refer to the subject by its exact specific name. You have to alter your search parameters and not be so stringent. For example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. And DoctorJoeE, I have added even more new source material since your comments, perhaps you haven't revisited the article lately. Examples: The New Yorker, and The Hollywood Reporter, and Rolling Stone. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've swapped out a few sources in the lede, so that now it better explains why the topic is notable, per WP:LEAD. Specifically: Chicago Sun-Times called it "brilliant". Los Angeles Times called it one of the top ten best sketches of all time. Tulsa World called it "iconic". The New Yorker said "Belushi was perfect." The Hollywood Reporter interviewed Tom Hanks who said it was in the top five best sketches of all time. Rolling Stone placed it among Belushi's most memorable performances. Please see this version of the article for a comprehensive sourced presentation of the main aspects of the topic. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most notable parodies of ST:TOS ever made. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion per request by Cirt sst ✈ 01:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 01:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and in depth article. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was made before I was born and I knew about it before seeing the article. It is one of the great works of comedy. Personal preferences aside there seems to be plenty of sources to establish notability and to support a proper article. HighInBC 02:16, 11 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Warrior Prophet[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:NBOOK, search brings up science fiction/fantasy fansites, bookseller sites and other unreliable sources.~~ Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator, thanks to reviews found by Tokyogirl79, (damn google that give priority to fansites and booksellers and not reliable reviews:)). btw, I promise I did check the 1st 50 ghits.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prince of Nothing (which covers the Prince of Nothing series), no independent notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Bejnar. Nothing in searches turned up anything to show this book has enough notability on its own for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found four reviews for this book, which would have it pass notability guidelines as a whole, but I'm wondering if a redirect wouldn't be best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found another review, bumping the coverage to a full five reviews - enough for this to pass notability guidelines as a whole. In all fairness, I wouldn't have found some of these if I didn't have access to two college libraries, each with access to large academic databases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: It's cool - some of these were things that didn't show up in a regular search or in places like Highbeam. The stuff in the academic databases are all things that you have to have an account to access, so it's completely understandable why these didn't show up in a Google search. This happens a lot when it comes to the older stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudos to Tokyogirl79 for finding those reviews. I would suggest; however, that even if this volume were independently notable, it is still better encyclopedic presentation to discuss all of the series in the Prince of Nothing article. --Bejnar (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no true issue with that, if that's what everyone wants to do, however that should be done via a merge proposal on the talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 17 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 nomination withdrawn Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Knight[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:NBOOK, search brings up heaps of fansites, bookseller sites and other unreliable sources.~~ Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. See Comment ~~at end~~ below. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All 15 of Jim Butcher's fantasy novels in The Dresden Files series have their own articles, most with similar sources. The early novels make the New York Times ebook best seller list years after first publication, including this one. This is popular culture, not literature, and there should be reliable fantasy fiction sites for reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons as User:StarryGrandma. 79.44.36.92 (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The bestselling Dresden Files ebooks are mentioned in here. I'm not sure whether this is an usable source or not. 79.44.36.92 (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a respectable number of reviews for this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ISFDB shows two reviews in notable genre-related magazines on initial publications, and I believe it also hit the Locus best seller lists at that time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: @TonyTheTiger: It's probably a good idea, particularly for TonyTheTiger, to provide a few links. They might be more readily accepted than the one I provided. 79.51.19.245 (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thanks to all the keepers, just a couple of comments "All 15 of Jim Butcher's fantasy novels in The Dresden Files series have their own articles, most with similar sources." - is a case of WP:WHATABOUTX and doesn't mean an article is notable; just hitting The New York Times Best Seller list is not necessarily notable, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (books); asserting "There are a respectable number of reviews for this subject." without setting out where to find them is not very helpful. That being said, I would like to especially thank The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) for providing the proof of two reviews of this book - in Locus [18] and Vector [19] so this book does meet criteria one of WP:NBOOK (plus being on the Locus bestseller list albeit for one month [20]), so I withdraw the nomination... Also, this afd did appear to be getting a bit snowy Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Coolabahapple. @Coolabahapple: @MjolnirPants: Reading the WhatAboutX policy, I think I can see what motivated you, but I don't feel it's the case. Not entirely, at least: since Summer Knight is part of the series (its fourth member) it can't be deleted without having a missing page about the Dresden Files, which will be bound to be recreated by anyone who cares enough to do so. I might concede that a page for each book might be too much; I doubt that new content will be added, they're not THAT notable. I'm not sure, but perhaps merging them all in one page? 79.51.19.245 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There really should be more research done before nominating these books for deletion. This is the second time since I started watching these pages that an AfD request has been made for a book in this series and promptly shot down. Check the main page for the article, just for starters. You can see that in addition to the number of novels on the bestseller list (all of them since the tenth, and a few before), the nomination of books in the series for awards like the Hugos (the most recent book) and notable reviews of the series, there's also a role-playing game and a television series based on them, both of which achieve notability in their own rights. I hate to sound like I'm giving the OP grief, but there's really no room to debate the notability of these books, unless you do so from a position of not knowing anything about the series. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but it's just the truth. I wish I could help put a moratorium on more AfD's for these books, but I can't. At least I can vent a little, here. Apologies if I hurt anyone's feelings. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on the above - WP:NOTINHERITED, although a book series is notable it doesn't automatically mean that all of the books in the series are notable enough for a standalone article; it may be appropriate for some to have a redirect to the series article. Note: I am not saying this is the case with this series ... says coolabah who will be slinking back to child lit articles with tail between legs and will be more careful in the future when looking at sf/fantasy articlesCoolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Coolabahapple's defense, an individual books do not inherit notability from a series because of its popularity and assuming that no sources could be found for this book it could always potentially be made into a redirect to the main series page, as WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. There's always room to grow and I'll say in Coolabahapple's defense that they're a newer editor and that other than one or two missteps recently, they're an overall good editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:18, 16 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred DeLorey[edit]

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

Being a political candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. Neither does being a PMO staffer. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, barely verifies. Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:BLPNOTE. Sources like Key players in the 2011 Conservative war room, a picture, and the two lines Candidate support and information for debates or interviews. DeLorey is the party's chief spokesman., doesn't support much. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editor. Nothing on searches to show they meet WP:GNG, and they definitely don't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot credibly demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the seat. But this doesn't adequately demonstrate that he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article — essentially, it's a campaign brochure. That said, at this point the discussion will hit eligibility for closure on October 18 — but election day is the very next day, and as a Conservative running in a traditionally Conservative seat he is a strong contender to win. Accordingly, at this point I'd request that closure be deferred the additional day pending the election results, or if that isn't an option then the article be sandboxed in draft space so that a revised version can be moved back into place again if he actually does win. I'll revise this to a delete vote if he loses, obviously, and it would have been a more straightforward "delete as campaign brochure and then recreate if he wins" if there had been a longer lead time — but with just a 24 hour gap between closure and potential recreation, we may as well just wait out the extra day. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree, defer the deletion until after the election, notability status may change. FUNgus guy (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Userfication is fine, deferring not really. See WP:TOOSOON. The article still needs citation to multiple reliable sources. Having articles just becauyse they're candidates is a slippery slope, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Bejnar (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deferring closure for one or two more days past Day 7 is a thing that AFD does have the latitude to do in certain circumstances — and "the article has a high probability of having to be recreated again the very next day" is exactly the kind of circumstance where we have that latitude. And deferring it for one more day wouldn't even put it outside the normal range of AFD process, because it's fairly common for a discussion to linger into Day 8, 9 or 10 just because nobody even gets around to closing it until then. I'm not suggesting that he should get an extended deferral just for being a candidate — I'm pretty well known around here as one of the editors who's most actively involved in quashing that argument when it rears its head, and I explicitly said that (a) I would have said delete at literally any other time during the course of the campaign, and (b) I'll come back to support a delete if he isn't declared the winner tomorrow night — but given that the timing involved here means that the article might have to be recreated again literally tomorrow, it's not unreasonable to just hold off closure for one more day. Especially when even the nominator agreed with me. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not whether he'll be elected today. (Polls suggest he won't.) The problem is coverage and citation to multiple reliable sources in the article. Yes, MPs are traditionally notable under WP:NPOL, but as WP:N says No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. It may take sometime for that coverage to develop. --Bejnar (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for an elected MP, the article is automatically allowed to exist the moment their election has been declared by one reliable source. Once that declaration has been made, deletion is immediately off the table forever unless the result gets overturned on an automatic or judicial recount before he ever actually gets sworn into office, and whatever further time it takes for an extended volume of RS coverage to unfold is allowed to do that unfolding with the article already in place waiting for it. Being elected to the House of Commons is not a "merely because he exists" thing — it's a claim of notability that inherently lifts a person above "politician who exists", and directly into "politician who must have an article on Wikipedia regardless of how inadequate that article might be in the first few days, because the fact of being elected to the House of Commons has made him notable for more than just existing". And like I said, if he doesn't win I'll be the first to come back and revise my call to a delete instead (between my cheers of joy, because Central Nova is one of those "if the Conservatives lose that one they're burnt" ridings) — but it's worth being aware that the datestamp on that polling article is September 23, and a lot can change in a month. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 19 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 18:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Osteopathy[edit]

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

Non-notable "college", article reads like an advertisement. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely until a better article can be made as I found nothing aside from a few browser links. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below - I had completely missed the fact it's the largest in Europe although that could just be bullshit but sources found which all meet GNG so keep. –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is the largest provider of osteopathic education in Europe. As an accredited program its graduates are accepted throughout Europe."Grundständige Ausbildung ohne medizinischen Basisberuf". Österreichische Gesellschaft für Osteopathie.; "L'identité Paradoxale de l'Ostéopathie: Impact des Législations et Règlementations sur son Évolution" (PDF). Institut de Formation en Ostéopathie du Grand Avignon. I have added a couple of citations to the article, primarily for WP:V purposes. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Not that the article doesn't need work, it does and it is a little promotional in tone. But that is fixable. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is rather promotional in tone but does likely have notability as the largest provider of osteopathic education in Europe. Some sources for GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have made some deep cuts per WP:WPSCH/AG, and would suggest the bulleted § History be reduced to a short prosed section if it can be sourced. As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The institution does exist and sources, albeit maybe not in abundance, exist to verify it. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:30, 18 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.