Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 October	28 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 Speedy keep This AFD nomination is so far from the mark that it can only have been made with the intention of disrupting WP. The nominator is the main contributor to the article in question and has very successfully established notability over the course of an entire year. To now claim that the band's significance is questionable is disingenuous. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Monsters (band)[edit]

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

there are no reliable sources about the band's current activity, the significance of the band is questionnable Wikismasha (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because [there are no reliable sources about the artist's current activity]:

   :Steph Honde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is totally fine, very well document, very detailed (this obvious when you read the page) and shouldn't be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McDonaldhenry (talk • contribs)

Apparently Wikimasha is the administrator of the page,so what would be the reason for that person to say that the sources on that page are not reliable and that the significance of the band is questionable? Maybe the wikimasha account has been hacked? There's obviously a lot of time spent on that page and it seems strange that the same person would want to delete what he has done for these reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McDonaldhenry (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Monsters are currently recording a new album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McDonaldhenry (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a ridiculous nomination.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:18, 29 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. KTC (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunath Singh Thakur[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage. The article does not cite any (one link is just a listing mentioning him, the other is not independent). Google News search returns no results for "Raghunath Singh Thakur" [1]. It does return a few for "R. S. Thakur"[2], but it seams that those are not about the same person. Google Books search returns few hits for "Raghunath Singh Thakur"[3], but it seams that those are about some prince. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had hoped the creator had some material to back up his claims. It is, after all, his autobiography. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Not enough, or really any, coverage in reliable sources to verify and sustain an article. The claim for discovering Artemisinin is not supported by our article which says "[Artemisinin] was discovered by Tu Youyou, a Chinese scientist, who was awarded half of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine for her discovery." Acording to GScholar his work is not highly cited so he fails WP:PROF. Jbh ^Talk 23:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was wondering how this showed up at AfD. I thought I had an active BLPPROD on it. Turns out the author, User:R S Thakur1, created several of these including Ram Simha Thakur which exipred today [4] and Dr R S Thakur which was speedied. This is obviously shameless self promotion. Jbh^Talk 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least those two were about a different R S Thakur,[5] of LIT. Perhaps they were added in order to disambiguate that R S Thakur from this one at CIMAP. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the PROD from this page, thinking that the award tended to indicate notability, and that the claimed work on artemisinin sounded important. Searching for Thakur & artemisinin confirms that he did publish some papers on the subject, but I did not see any that refer to him by name in the text as having made notable advances; they merely cited his research. Although he was head of CIMAP, that does not appear to be a "major academic institution", so his directorship does not establish criterion 6 at WP:ACADEMIC. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Just a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, with few sources to back up claims on a quick search. As a BLP, this would be a big problem. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 11:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the article's creator has identified himself as Ravindranath Singh Thakur (note: different first name), and denied that this article was about himself.[6] – Fayenatic London 13:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:NOTE. Lack of significant secondary source coverage independent of the subject himself. — Cirt (talk) 07:14, 30 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Bowen[edit]

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

This individual is not notable. The article appears to be self promotion. The edit history and users involved suggest a conflict of interest and non neutral point of view re Horison Community College. isfutile:P (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it is certainly true that the user who added Bowen's current affiliation to Horizon Community College, in a couple of five word sentences also edited the college's page, and may indeed be surmised to be have, shall we say, some affiliation, it is not true that the article is non-neutral about his involvement. Indeed the editor concerned added negative news citations to the college page.

Certainly I have never met Bowen, and am not his alter-ego, as the couple of hundred editors who have met me in the flesh can testify.

Bowen was awarded a significant award, and has a documented history of innovating for enterprise, specifically, but not exclusively, young enterprise.

He easily passes WP:GNG on this basis.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

delete. Of the two refs one is to his own institution, so not a reliable third party one, while the other mentions him only in passing. So no in-depth coverage in a reliable source, never mind the multiple sources required for GNG. Secondary school academics are rarely notable and usually require exceptional evidence, such as winning a national award. The Queen's Awards for Enterprise is award to over a hundred people or organisations every year, and is hardly grounds for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Queens Award for Enterprise Innovation is awarded to about 7 or 8 people per year. Unlike the Queens Award to Industry, which is awarded to organisations, it is awarded to people. Moreover it is an award for "good works" benefiting others, rather than for (possibly enlightened) self interest.
- Please note nominator had eviscerated the references from this article before nominating and removed the main claim to notability from the lead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I had a look at the version immediately before nomination and it makes no difference; the additional references are both first party ones to official coverage of the award, not reliable third party ones. And there are over a hundred awards under the Queen's Award every year. The one third party ref, to a local paper, lists seven alone in this part of the country. And a brief mention in a local paper is not enough for GNG.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that, for quite some time now, User:Rich Farmbrough has set himself the task of creating articles for each and every recipient of the Queen's Enterprise Award. For most of them, it is difficult to see how they ever would have gotten articles were it not for the award and, accordingly, the merits of a stand-alone article should be judged under the guidelines for "single-event" notability. This point is a lot clearer if we look at the articles for some of the other 2010 recipients -- Timothy Allan, Simon Denny (professor), Murdoch MacLeod, or Kenneth Nelson (businessman). Mr. Farmbrough, may I make a suggestion? How about creating an article for each year's crop of recipients, such as "Queen's Enterprise Promotion Award 2010"? I doubt that anyone would object to such an article and it would be the perfect place to host a brief biography of each recipient. The individual articles could remain as re-directs to the overall article for the particular year. What do you think? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually an approach I favour for marginally notable subjects, in some cases.
- There are two issues with articles about awardees of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, firstly our coverage of business is terribly lacking, and its worth creating these stubs to see if they can become articles, and secondly many of these people (like most of our article subjects) have more to their biography than simply winning an award (as might be the case with a typical lottery winner). In this case Bowen might equally belong in Horizon Community College or St Benet Biscop Catholic High School.
- Finally there is the risk of someone getting the parent article deleted on spurious grounds, such as naming - this has happened to about 20 QE articles.
- If you wish to expand Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (2010) into a list article, though, I certainly would have no objection.
- Note in this example the number of refs has been increased from 2 to 11 since nomination.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Re "our coverage of business is terribly lacking", our covering of businesspeople like anything else depends on the depths of coverage in reliable sources. There is no shortage of press coverage of modern business and businesspeople; general newspapers produce reams of it daily, while specialist business publications go into more depth and have wider coverage. And it is almost all online; even if paywalled it is indexed and searchable. So no, it’s not lacking by missing people like Nicholas Bowen; by our standards he is not notable, as there are no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage of him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While the coverage of him isn't immense, it appears enough to count as "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A borderline case, but I believe it's enough to me. Jujutacular (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reliable source are you looking at, that has significant coverage? I could see only trivial coverage, nothing that covers him in any depth among the secondary sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Definitely seems to meet significant coverage criteria, and Rich's arguments about business coverage is absolutely true: these are more than "simple biased awards", the are fairly significant recognitions of the contribution to these business communities, Sadads (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion and hence passes WP:BIO (point 1). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion, because the "Keep" votes don't appear to be grounded in policy Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I probably don't think a relist is necessary as Recipient of Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion#The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2010. I acknowledge that receipt of the Queen's award confers some notability, but WP:BIO is not the only guideline we should be looking to. I have in mind something more like WP:BLP1E or WP:NOPAGE. Consider what this article would look like if we removed mention of the Queen's award. Would there still be a serious debate over the notability of the subject? Perhaps some of the "keep" voters would say "yes", but what exactly would they point to? We are told, for example, that the subject was involved in an enterprise intended to "incubate students' ideas". But in the entire history of humanity, hasn't every educator set him/herself the task of "incubating students' ideas"? We are also told that the subject was involved in getting students to visit local businesses. In the U.S., we used to call these things "field trips". Is there any school administrator today who hasn't organized field trips for their students? All that I see in this article (other than the Queen's award) are locally-sourced statements that a school official has been doing the things that we normally expect school officials to do. And what has become of the subject since receiving the award in 2010? The article tells us that, in 2013, the subject sought to encourage students to become physically fit and acted as the chairman of a series of inter-school games. We also learn that the subject had to reduce staff due to budget cuts. Again, these are routine activities for which WP:Run-of-the-mill can be a useful guide. As I noted above, I think a better target for a redirect would be a new article on the 2010 recipients of the award, but I'll respect Mr. Farmbrough's judgment that such an article is not advisable. But the parent article can also serve as an appropriate target, at which a brief biography of the subject can be placed directly under his name. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect is appropriate in this case and I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies. Editors need not be reminded that subject of an article need not pass all the notability criteria to merit an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia. For example if an academic passes WP:ACADEMIC#1, they need not pass every other criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list of people awarded the prize put simply, I do not accept the Queen's Award for Enterprise Innovation as a sufficient award for notability. There may often be additional factors, but there does not seem to be any here. Principal of a secondary school is generally non-notable. Though there are several possible targets for a redirect, the list of awardees would seem the best chocie. It will in addition permit easy expansion if there is additional notability forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the article about the award. While the award contributes to notability, if it is the only claim to notability, than I do not believe this person meets our notability criteria. Outside of the award, not much else. WP:ANYBIO only says that if they have won an award they may be notable. Based on that, delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "Headteacher receives Queen's enterprise award". News Post Leader. 2010-04-22. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
2. "North East super seven celebrating Queen's Award accolade". The Journal. 2010-04-21. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
3. "Inspirational head wins top award for enterprise". The Journal. 2010-04-23. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
  The article is also stored here^WebCite.
4. "'We want parents to see that there are opportunities for their children'". The Yorkshire Post. 2012-01-21. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
  The article notes:
  It’s billed as Yorkshire’s super school, but can a new building, even one costing £50m, really kick start the regeneration of Barnsley? Sarah Freeman reports.
  Since he was appointed last March, Nick Bowen has spent much of his time on a building site. As the head of Barnsley’s new Horizon Community College, he’s been on first name terms with the workmen who have been transforming a 46-acre site into what will be the biggest school in the country.
  ...
  Bowen stops short of promising HCC will be able to work miracles, but he does have form when it comes to blending the teaching of traditional education with entrepreneurial skills.
  In his last headteacher post at St Benet Biscop in the North East, he won the Queen’s Award for Enterprise, normally reserved for business.
  ...
  Bowen has been in teaching for almost 25 years and while his career choice may have been accidental, his designs on Barnsley’s education are anything but.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nicholas Bowen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of those sources are notable for the schools or the award, but none infer notability onto Nicholas Bowen. If doing a good job as a headteacher was notable, hundreds of thousands of headteachers would have wikipedia pages. Does anyone have any sources which are primarily about Nicholas Bowen? If not, I don't see how this article passes notability in its current form. As it stands there is no significant coverage about Nicholas Bowen. isfutile:P (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here. He's not just "A headteacher", he's the inaugural headteacher of "biggest school in the country" according to the Yorkshire Post. He won a significant award for enterprise innovation. He meets WP:GNG.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If this individual is notable, there should be significant third part coverage about the individual. There isn't in this article. If such sources can be added, I'll change to KEEP, but as it stands I still vote DELETE since notability, on this basis, has not been satisfied.

Let's look at the article sources in turn:

"Headteacher receives Queen's enterprise award". News Post Leader. 22 April 2010. This article makes passing mention of the article subject and is not enough for notability.

"The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion: Recipients list" (PDF). Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source simply replicates source 1.

"Staff Contact Information". Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source is irrelevent to notability.

"Mr Nicholas Bowen". The Queens Award For Enterprise Magazine: 18-19. ISSN 2041-9783. Retrieved 3 October 2015. This source replicates source 1.

"North East super seven celebrating Queen's Award accolade". The Journal. 21 April 2010. Retrieved 3 October 2015. This article is about the school and not the article subject.

"Building is to be demolished and then rebuilt". News Post Leader. 22 May 2006. This source is about the school and not the article subject.

"Alcan boosts high school youth initiative". Morpeth Herald. 5 March 2008. This source is not about the article subject.

Ruth Mitchell (30 July 2008). "UK first puts enterprising kids in the driving seat". B. Daily. This source is not about the article subject.

"Project Launch To Get Kids Fit and Active". 15 January 2013. This source is not about the article subject.

"Horizon hosting repeat of South Yorkshire School Games". 3 July 2013. This source is not about the article subject.

Mike Cotton (27 June 2014). "Secondary school announces shock redundancies". Barnsley Chronicle. This source is not about the article subject.

Therefore, only one source makes passing mention of the article subject. There are insufficient sources and no evidence of significant third party coverage of the subject of the article. isfutile:P (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't seem like a well known award at all, if it was, there would easily be plenty of good sources, right? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woolfell[edit]

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

Upcoming film, no suggestion that it meets WP:NFF. ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles.") The only sources I can find suggest that the film has only very recently been announced at all. McGeddon (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search for ("woolfell") turned up primarily pages concerned with fabrics. Refining the search to ("woolfell" haran) produced little more. One of the few hits was a one-paragraph piece in Starviews, dated October 27, 2015, which states that "More details about the project and others in the cast and crew will be announced shortly." This suggests that production hasn't gone forward to any great extent, even to the point of serious efforts at publicity. Per WP:NFF, "[F]ilms that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." In light of this and the lack of press coverage, deletion seems pretty clearly indicated. Ammodramus (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil/Yuvan-Heads-to-Hollywood/2015/10/28/article3100455.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidsleef (talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 October 2015‎

That's just an article about someone agreeing to score the music, and mentioning that a "teaser" trailer will be released next month. It does not confirm that principal photography has begun. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the film's slated for release in December 2017, and that they expect to get the final print to the musician for soundtrack scoring in January 2017. This suggests that production is still in its early stages. Ammodramus (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFF, "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." If the music's not going to be scored until January 2017, then clearly final recording hasn't yet begun. Ammodramus (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to meet the guideline for upcoming films Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep'. Can always be nominated in the future if the condition of the article doesn't improve. (non-admin closure) Wikienglish123 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jones (writer)[edit]

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

Not a notable writer. JDDJS (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faustus Bidgood is a notable and historically important Newfoundland film, so criterion #3 of WP:CREATIVE might apply. In addition, Jones is interviewed twice in Cinema Canada (once alone and once w/ his brother and co-collaborator Andy Jones (comedian) as seen here, for example. Michael was never a member - or core member anyway - of the CODCO comedy ensemble, so he's not as well known as Andy, to be sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And he was the sole writer and director of Secret Nation, which didn't get the Genie nomination for best original screenplay, as Faustus Bidgood, but apparently was screened at MoMA in NYC. I'm gonna say the combination of criterion #3 of WP:CREATIVE, the Cinema Canada interviews listed in the bibliography linked to above, just meets our basic requirements. He's the lesser known of the siblings Cathy Jones and Andy Jones (comedian) -- he isn't even linked to in their articles! -- but I say keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only real issue here is that the article was created in 2005, a time when our referencing standards weren't as well-defined as they are now — so it's not that the sourceability and notability don't exist, it's just that they didn't actually have to be shown in quite the same way as they do now. But the guy was a screenwriter and director of two historically noteworthy films, and garnered a Genie Award nomination for Best Screenplay for one of them — and, in fact, while the article doesn't make this clear in its current form, he was also the same film's editor, and garnered a Genie Award nomination for Best Editing too. And a two-time nominee for a top national film award is a topic who does clear our notability rules — even just one nomination would make him an automatically-eligible topic, let alone two. The sourcing just needs to be upgraded for compliance with 2015-vintage content standards, which isn't the same thing as notability failing to exist. Keep and I'll work on updating it. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 28 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. Editor was given plenty of chances at Draft:David Elmasllari to address WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and warned repeated rapid submissions without improvements that meet policies may be seen as disruption. Editor chose to ignore those warnings. Mkdw ^talk 20:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David elmasllari[edit]

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

The article in it's current state does not satisfy the notability guidelines according to WP:BLP. And the article under the same name has been rejected several times at Afc. So, taking it to Afd. Peppy Paneer (talk) 19:33, 27 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. KTC (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lempo[edit]

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

Not notable. Most(if not all) references are primary. -- Kethrus |talk to me 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a brief mention in local newspaper. The coverage in reliable sources falls way short of what is required for a Wikipedia biography according to WP:BASIC. - Mr X 20:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no obvious better improvement here at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be worth noting Designer DJ has contacted me on my talk page and informed me they've had two top 40's the Club Chart, which may be regarded as a national chart (they said it is regarded as a national chart, I'm not sure). -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they can provide reliable sources to support that claim, and if the "Club Chart" is a national chart, that may be an indication of notability.- Mr X 13:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: see this on my talk page, they seem to be on one of Music Week's charts, but I'm struggling to find that on the internet (searching "Music Week" Upfront club top 40 DJ "Lempo" (including quotes), and I don't think I should have to rely on an image on someones personal dropbox account which can't be found after google image searching it. So it's not really easily verifiable. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:02, 28 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. KTC (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia Rain[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines except a mention of reaching number one on "Grischa Charts", which isn't explained or sourced. Almost certainly isn't a national music chart. Fails WP:BAND. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reviews or coverage. Mentions in Lahrer Zeitung are fairly trivial, and it's a local media source that arguably wouldn't satisfy notability requirements even if they were otherwise. The "Grischa Charts" arguably save this from A7 speedy, but are decidedly not national charts. Rather, they are associated with , a single radio station (and online music site) in Switzerland. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing convincingly better to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging interested subject users Michig, Walter Görlitz and Vrac. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for European Reform[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Although some famous people gave their blessing to this association, it has not caused any mayor impact. The page appears that it was already deleted before. I don't know how much worse this version can be. Denidi (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This one surprised me. Google and Google News searches for ("centre for european reform") turned up lots of references to the organization, including lots of pieces, and citations to pieces, written by fellows of the organization. However, all of my Googling, including attempts to refine the search by adding search terms like "organized" (and "organised"), "founded", and "established", turned up no real in-depth coverage by independent sources. The frequency with which the organization and its members are cited in the news argues in favor of keeping the article, but I can't find enough coverage to satsify WP:GNG. Even a single reasonably detailed piece in an independent source would change my !vote on this, and it really seems as though someone with more Google prowess than I could find one. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in any case until better improvement is made. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 28 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. KTC (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shop in a box[edit]

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

Unsourced design concept. No indication of notability. I can't even find any reliable sources on the concept at all. clpo13_(talk) 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've got a big fat nothing, with what sources appeared to exist being false positives for various workshop or materials fabrication boxes, as opposed to a retail deployment paradigm. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search for ("shop in a box") turned up lots of hits, but nothing about it as a design concept; most of them were for specific business or products, e.g. "Machine shop in a box", "Beauty shop in a box". Refining the search by adding the purported originator's name from the article, to ("shop in a box" "gareth williams") turned up eight hits, none of which would satisfy WP:GNG. Among them was Gareth Williams's LinkedIn page, which includes the fact that he's in Norwich, Norfolk. The article was created by User:NorfolkBlue, whose brief edit history includes only six edits outside of this article. This may be coincidence, but we can't rule out the possiblity that self-promotion was going on. In any case, the absence of independent coverage makes this a fairly easy delete. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:01, 28 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. KTC (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Lee[edit]

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

Completely non-notable college gymnast (no mention of any medals) per WP:NGYMNAST. clpo13_(talk) 18:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potentially a speedy deletion A7 candidate. I am certain the subject is a skilled athlete, and I wish her the best in her career, but at this point, I don't see anything in the article that makes a claim of significance, nor anything in available sources that satisfies the notability criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search for ("kari lee" gymnast) turns up coverage in some Utah media, most of it not in great depth. I don't find any meaningful coverage outside of Utah sources. Lee's achievements to date don't appear to meet the criteria at WP:NGYMNAST. She might achieve notability later, but at present it's WP:TOOSOON. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a common name, so searches for good sources may be difficult. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth, Halifax, Nova Scotia[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. Original PROD reasoning still stands: No references to show that this is anything significant. Best I can find is small new development bearing this name, and a mention here [7] but no indication of the map [8] to say where it is or define its boundaries. Unless there is something more concrete I think this in nothing but a vague notion. I don't think the fact that there is a school and hiking trail with this name is particularly relevant. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG"; this place fails WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can find for this is that it's a 50-house housing development along Fleetview Drive in the Bedford district of Halifax. But housing subdivisions do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles under WP:GEOLAND — if the place were properly sourceable as a distinct community in its own right, e.g. actually having its own distinct postal code range rather than sitting inside Bedford's B4A/B4B range, then it might pass the test. But even then, GEOLAND does not confer an exemption from the need to reliably source the content. Either delete or redirect to Bedford, Nova Scotia. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOLAND. Not notable and not a "community" like the others in the category. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons of nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Public Administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago[edit]

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

Non-notable department of a non-notable college of a notable university. Simply a listing of degrees offered. Wikipedia is not a directory. clpo13_(talk) 18:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom sums it up nicely Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of special prestige compared to others, or any other claim to meet WP:ORG. A brief Google web search just brings up routine websites and credits of people who happen to work in that department at the time; a brief Google News search doesn't bring up anything substantial about this department. --Closeapple (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrion's Restaurant[edit]

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

I can not find any reference to this chain at all. It isn't listed at List of Philippine restaurant chains, which is odd given the article claims it is the largest there. I then thought it might be a parent company, but any and all searches have turned up nothing about this company. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but this appears to fail all notability guidelines or to be WP:MADEUP. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax...thought this was the usual unreferenced spamburger, but the complete lack of search hits is more than suspicious.TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. I'm willing to call this one blatant. It claims to be a major multinational company, and the largest fast food chain in the Philippines. Hewitt doesn't seem aware of their award. And searches for the purported founder reveal nothing but unrelated social media. Completely implausible as presented. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They only reason I didn't CSD it myself is that I don't trust my search abilities for Philippine topics. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A chain that large should have some hits. Agree it's a hoax. ubiquity (talk) 18:43, 27 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. KTC (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margajito[edit]

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

We used to have frequent fun deleting articles on "something made up in school one afternoon". OK, this drink was made up in a bar or apartment instead, apparently by "MW and HF in 2007": the article was created by M888w on 4 June 2007 presumably staright after, and this user has made no further edits. Emeraude (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And consider speedy deletion A11 for an obviously invented subject. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this was a "real thing", then bartending guides published in the last 8 years would discuss it. Instead, it appears only in Wikipedia mirrors like Books LLC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gets some Google hits, but none of them look like reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up concoction. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:43, 30 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. KTC (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Asif Mehmood Ikhwani[edit]

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

City level leader of Pakistani organization Jamaat e Islami. Only sources given are website of this organization. Some facebook links are also present. He is also a social worker but there is no indication that his social work is noticed by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Human3015^TALK 13:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very obviously (to me at least) promotional. Doesn't seem notable enough for an article here. There is a distinct case of WP:OWN ("This Article is Created And Designed By Israr Bhai"), and also of not listening by the author who has been warned more than I think I've ever seen for removing AfD notices. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real notability at all, by Wikipedia standards. 39.54.77.160 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Dr Hilda Khan[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kundu[edit]

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

Biography of living person created by editor of same name. This person is blogger from India. There is no evidence of notability on google search. But there is claim of winning a tech award and some unreliable sources so nominated for AfD instead of speedy. Human3015^TALK 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : It's a pure hoax. Also all the references are from unreliable sources.Josu4u (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : wretched attempt at SEO and/or self-promotion wrapped in a hoax as stated above. — Brianhe (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 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. KTC (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pricey[edit]

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

Article was created on September 26 and speedily deleted on October 27 due to unclear notability (lack of independent sources). The article has just been recreated exactly as before, with no new sources. General Ization ^Talk 12:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I am deferring advocating to either Keep or Delete the article at this point in the discussion.) In general, of course, if an article has been speedily deleted and the creator (or another editor) believes the deletion to have been in error, the proper course is to request a deletion review, not simply recreate the article, especially not without addressing any of the issues raised when the original article was tagged for deletion. And when an article was previously deleted due to a valid issue, and the same article is recreated without addressing the issue(s) raised, such an article will generally be deleted again after discussion reaches a consensus to do so. But the article is now here on Wikipedia (again), and so there is an opportunity for AlexWit to provide reliable sources to establish Dear Pricey's notability. Indeed, I see that in fact AlexWit has already begun attempting to provide such sources — though I have not yet examined the sources to determine whether any of them are actually reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. I will wait and see how the article develops. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that the subject satisfies WP:NSINGER – no major record label, no notable singles or albums, no awards or award nominations. In addition, the "Career" section is a copyright violation of [9]. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 16:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unless some credible references appear. YouTube indeed.TheLongTone (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable I'll try again when better references appear. AlexWit —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As even the creator of the article has now conceded that the subject is not yet sufficiently notable to warrant an article, request speedy delete. General Ization ^Talk 14:50, 28 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. KTC (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saheed Aderinto[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. He is just doing his job. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient accomplishments for WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor is usually WP:TOOSOON for notability and this article does not provide evidence for being an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Capulín[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Last AfD contained too many additional nominations which resulted in No consensus. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and the only sources are links to his fight records and some routine sports reporting. There's also a big disconnect between the article's claim of his amateur record being 114-18 and the reference showing it at 3-3. Even if the article is correct, success as a junior does not imply notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see no better signs of better improvement at this time. Pinging RonSigPi. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NBOX. Coverage is routine sports reporting. Conflict in amateur record, have to go with the source over the unsupported claim in the text. A junior medal doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the nom had a valid point, the four cogent arguments made to keep the article are grounded in policy, and no other editor has supported deleting the article. Even though 3 of the 4 are weak keeps, the consensus is keep, albeit weakly. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim White-Sobieski[edit]

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

Biography of a modern artist that seems to fail WP:ARTIST. Lots of references/external links - and all seem to be to limited circulation, mostly offline catalogs, gallery pages selling his work, and other local/not-in-depth/unreliable sources. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage on him in GNews/GBooks; google gives social media/gallery sites... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminal cycle for an article about a work by this artist. —Kusma (t·c) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't consider deleting until the following has been remedied: This is the formula for losing a promising new writer for Wikipedia. This is one of two articles submitted by the writer/editor and both are up for deletion in only a few days after creation, on the VERY FIRST ATTEMPTS AT WRITING ARTICLES. So far as I can see, no one has offered to talk to the writer to offer help, just slapped a delete tag on his/her works. There are news sources available on this subject, and if I can I will help. But I suggest that those slapping delete tags on works should start improving their own under-sourced and easy-to-label-as not-notable articles.Jacqke (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacqke: Your argument for keeping is totally irrelevant to to the merits of the article, hence totally not a valid argument here. You should bring it to Wikipedia deletion policy, but I am pretty sure it's a dead horse. And anyway, personally, I think it is not a good argument, because I, for one, became an active editor following the deletion of my first contribution in 2003. It motivated me to learn the rules and learn how to write articles which are notable, copyvio-free, etc. I agree we need to be more friendly to new editors, but that does not extent to giving their content a pass just because they are new. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is lots of coverage online, and many mentions in Google News / Google Books. None of the online sources are particularly in-depth, but there do seem to be enough exhibition catalogues from reasonably notable galleries / museums to write a proper article. The current article does require a lot of cleanup, though -- it reads more suitable for an exhibition catalogue than for an encyclopaedia. I think this makes this a weak keep. —Kusma (t·c) 11:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has an entry on imdb.com and is notable enough based on online searches. However I would be opposed to his article being a featured article TypingInTheSky (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is definitely overkill. Way too much info, far too much analysis. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue essay. However, his exhibition record easily satisfies WP:ARTIST: he's been in numerous museum exhibitions and is part of many collections. As for WP:GNG, he just reaches the threshold. I would like to see more third-party sources (there's far too many catalogue essays) but the bare minimum is there. I'd also like to point out that limited circulation and/or offline publications are not liabilities. We need sources that are independent of the subject and it looks like there are a few. In-depth museum catalogues are good for WP:ARTIST however as they demonstrate importance in the field. freshacconci talk to me 18:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep - This person fails WP:ARTIST, but that is not a sole factor in deciding what is notable and what is not. Does the person meet WP:GNG? Barely. And I do mean barely. He (and one or more of his works) is mentioned in many different sources, such as this magazine article, as well as this one. He's also mentioned in some news articles as well (such as here (translated), and here (also translated)). The sources (collectively) do add up to be significant per se, and there are many more sources that do mention his work such as art centers and publishers (not secondary sources, but they are noted and considered). Why such a weak keep? Because I don't see any sources that cover the person himself in an in-depth manner, nor do I see anything regarding his work that asserts any kind of cultural, social, or societal impact. I'm really on the fence about this vote, mostly because the sources that I found mention him and one or more of his artistic pieces, but aren't exclusively covering the person. But, the many sources I found were plentiful, reliable, and secondary. For these reasons, I believe the article meets WP:GNG and that notability is established... barely, but just enough. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you @Jacqke: @Piotrus:, @Kusma:, @TypingInTheSky:, and @Freshacconci:

Thank you all for your comments!

Comment I agree,@Piotrus: that I should know the rules of Wikipedia more thoroughly - it will make me a better editor in the future.

Comment As per your advice, I have deleted all the external links in the body of the article, and have also truncated catalog language, @Kusma: and @Freshacconci:, so hopefully it reads as a fact-based article more now.

What shall I do as far as images copyright? I really don't understand how that works. If the image is self-photographed, then what is the issue? Shall I get a letter from the artist's studio manager to verify that these images are acceptable to use in an encyclopedic context?

I would greatly appreciate any further advice you can give me to ameliorate the status of this article, and to remove all of those flags as soon as possible.

I am myself a dedicated Wikipedia user, referring to its information on many subjects and consider the article on this artist to be a great educational resource for those interested in video art and installations.

Thank you again everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulinapaulina3030 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @Paulinapaulina3030: Thank you for fixing the EL issue. The notability tag should be removed after the likely closure of this AfD as keep. Regarding the images, please see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Art_.28copies_of.29; bottom line is that art is copyrighted 70 years until after the artist's death and it is illegal for people to reproduce it (that includes sharing digital images). Yes, this is widely ignored (Facebook, most of the net), but Wikipedia tries to respect the law (unlike most other sites), which does cause some confusion. To have this and/or other images stay on Wikipedia, follow the guideline sat Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F (and please note that as this is an encyclopedia, we would like to see the photo of the artist even more so than that of his/her art). Finally, I would just like to verify whether you are or are not User:Butterbeanne? If so, please note that Wikipedia policy is for an editor to operate only one account, and clearly mark the others they use (see WP:SOCK). If you are not Butterbeanne, then of course this is irrelevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @Piotrus: Thank you! Do you know how long it would take to take effect re: AfD flag? I will take care of images asap, just want to read everything thoroughly.

Yes, I can confirm I am not User:Butterbeanne, but know this editor and have also used their guidance. I don't know what I can provide as proof for my identity, except that I must have my own distinct ip address. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulinapaulina3030 (talk • contribs) 20:01, November 2, 2015‎ (UTC)

- - @Piotrus: That's fine, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the policy on socks; no need need to provide any ID. AfDs usually last a week or so, so I expect this one will be closed shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you @Piotrus:!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma State University homecoming[edit]

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

Unsourced non-notable annual event, nearly all university have a homecoming event of which none of them have an article covering the subject. I could see this article staying if it was solely covering last weekends tragedy at the parade but at a different title but even in that event I believe the subject is still not notable. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 09:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 09:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, but needs proper sources to indicate notability (Wikipedia:Notability (events). What I see on GNews is mostly local media coverage, and mostly focusing on the occasional incident (drunken driving, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One event at one university. No offence, but American universities do seem to take their little local events and sports terribly seriously! I think most of us outside the USA would find it very odd how seriously they take themselves - other than some major traditions to do with Oxbridge (like the Boat Race) which are long-established in British culture and stem from the time when almost everyone who was anyone went to one or other of those two universities I don't think anyone else in Britain, for example, would give a monkeys what students get up to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Article content appears to be lifted wholesale from The American Folklife Center project of the Library of Congress. I'm not clear enough on copyvio issues to know if this is in the public domain or not; I'm surprised that it's not attributed. If the article is kept, it will need to be cleaned up. HiDrNick! 17:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article as it stands probably needs to be revised or rewritten, the topic itself is notable and thus this article should not be deleted. Yes, even though practically all universities have "homecoming", some Homecomings are actually notable to warrant a separate article.

Furthermore, in my opinion the British editor's comment seems to be misinformed. One, university Homecoming is not just a "student" event, in fact it is primarily for the alumni and/or greater community. Two, of course in the US we take "little local" events seriously, do you think in a country with 300 million people and spanning from coast to coast there are really going to be nationally dominant universities like Oxford or Cambridge in the UK? Of course not. This university in particular is a major state university that serves not just its area but the whole state.

Here are some sources to perhaps establish or at least inform y'all of the notability of this particular Homecoming.

https://admissions.okstate.edu/be-a-cowboy/history-traditions
http://newsok.com/article/5453760
http://www.orangeconnection.org/s/860/Hybrid/index-hc.aspx?sid=860&gid=1&pgid=5909
http://theodysseyonline.com/oklahoma-st/americas-greatest-homecoming-we-earned-it/192875

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third sources are primary sources, secondary sources are whats needed. Also the forth source you provided seems like it wont pass WP:Reliable sources. Still doesn't seem to establish notability.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the second source was written by a member of the OSU Alumni Association. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem much different from any other homecoming other universities have. What makes this one so special? We are not going to have articles on every single event that every single major university has are we? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It just isn't true that there are zero universities who have article's covering the subject of their homecoming [10] so there needs to be more of a reason then just that one. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of good coverage Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Property Care Association[edit]

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

Page about a non-notable trade association. Article was originally somewhat promotional, but was recently expanded by an anon editor into an attack page. Most of the stated "sources" were about the general subject of damp in buildings and may only have made passing mention of the specific subject of this page; many of them are now dead and I have not been able to retrieve archived versions of them. – Fayenatic London 07:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any sources (GNews, GBooks) that would suggest it has achieved GNG / Wikipedia:NCOMPANY requirements. No in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. It exists, but it does not make it encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability per WP:NCOMPANY or WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now especially as a WP:TNT as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON for a trade association less than ten years old. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 30 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. Obvious Keep is obvious (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter E. Massey[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person Rathfelder (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems notable due to positions held, and has a single ref [11], so procedural and general keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus' points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. An impressive career as an academic ("a Fellow and past vice president of the American Physical Society", director of the Argonne National Laboratory, president of Morehouse College [12]), business executive (chairman of Bank of America),[13] 30 honorary degrees, etc. The list just goes on and on. A huge WP:BEFORE fail for Rathfelder. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:PROF #6 as President of Morehouse College. St Anselm (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The Morehouse presidency could be debated based on the small size of the institution. But heading NSF and then heading AAAS both are indisputably notable (at least a double pass of WP:PROF#C6) and being a fellow of APS and AAAS and a member of the American Academy and the American Philosophical Society give him a quadruple pass of #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 27 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) 04:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Television Style Awards[edit]

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

Newly started PR stunt “award function” by a television production house with no notability. Fails WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this; [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] - Ch an der 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do these gossip columns say? Can you tell us how it fits in our notability standards? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:48, 19 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! 00:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a matter of policy, self-awarded awards should not be given serious treatment in an encyclopedia. There are no independent sources here to tell us these are legitimate. - Brianhe (talk) 18:50, 21 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! 07:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Delete - as per nom, Sailor and Brianhe. Does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Dawat-e-Islami[edit]

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

Unsourced article which seems to be just a hoax or a promotional piece. There seems to have been some discussion about deleting it in the past but even though a general consensus was to prod it, no one seems to have bothered. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can actually be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 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! 00:56, 20 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! 06:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources given in the article, as well as those in the corresponding Urdu article, show that this is not a hoax. I don't think it is overly promotional; however, it appears to violate WP:NPOV, which can be remedied by replacing "the propagation of the true beliefs of Islam" by "the propagation of what it holds to be the true beliefs of Islam". (The Urdu version does not mention the propagation of religious views as a goal of the SDI, but only the eradication of the ills of society.) --Lambiam 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it might exist, but this is not a sourced encyclopedia article; it is a soapbox for one school of Sunni Islam. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. No one seems to be on board with deletion anymore. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Summit (Everest)[edit]

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

Prodded under "Unsourced paragraph; insufficient material for a separated page when Mount Everest could easily absorb this" but removed. No evidence that this particular summit is independently notable and I don't think individual mountain summits are inherently notable on their own. Maybe move to draftspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added two sources but to me it's still only passing mentions at best for them about this being the summit that ended one particular expedition. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROD proponent. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 05:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article looks adequate now. I would normally support merging it with Mount Everest, but the latter is 177k long, so splitting its topics won't hurt. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 05:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The South Summit is a notable feature very high on Mount Everest. It is located on the most commonly climbed route, the one first climbed by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay, and has been discussed in varying levels of detail in literally dozens of books about climbing Everest. For example, in Reinhold Messner's 1979 classic, "Everest: Expedition to the Utimate", he discusses the South Summit for several paragraphs, calling it "quite a milestone for me" on page 158 of the first English language edition. Messner is the first to climb Everest without oxygen and is certainly one of the greatest mountaineers ever. His book is in my lap right now, and I am finding discussion of the South Summit in several places throughout the book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topographic feature like the North Face, South Col, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some individual mountain summits may well not be notable, but the second highest on Earth? Did the nominator carry out WP:Before? Ϣere SpielChequers 15:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article and added four references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 28 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. joe decker ^talk 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abagail Grey[edit]

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

The best my searches found was this and this which all show Scottish news including this article and I was going to search more in-depth there but this seems obvious with no better improvement. It's worth noting "Abagail Grey" started this article in April 2012 so it's imaginable it was the band themselves. Pinging Titodutta and Missvain. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna say week keep on this one cause it seems to meet the basic requirements for notability as it has been mentioned in more than one reliable source but I don't like that it appears to have been self made. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. The underlying, or basic, notability guidelines require that multiple secondary reliable sources exist to cover this band, and that the coverage is significant and to the point that no original research is needed to extract the content. The only two sources I could find that were secondary, reliable, and discussed the band somewhat-significantly as its main topic were this and this. These sources seem okay to me, but the overall problem with this band is that significant coverage doesn't seem to exist... not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BASIC or establish notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability, Also I'm sorry but the name is rather stupid ... It looks like they tried to spell "Abigail" and ended up screwing it up entirely! ... Anyway fails GNG & all that. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister. Searches didn't turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embarcadero Technologies[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable? company with my searches only finding this, this, this, this and this. Pinging W Nowicki, TJRC, Pol098, Peterl, Jimfbleak, Gillyweed and Lid (not sure who else there is to ping before it was speedy deleted but there's likely not active anyway). SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with keep on this one because of ~~the good references.~~ Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Because there are a couple of good references. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not So Dumb Blond Actually have you noticed almost all of the sources are to the company itself....including press releases? Therefore no oustandingly better third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, you're right, most of them are. But there are like three third party sources. It needs cleanup and improvement if nothing else. I'm sticking to my keep vote though, but I'm not trying to start something. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've little interest in helping a company promote its products. At least two editors have used variants of the company name (now blocked since that's not allowed) and it's basically a shopping list of their products, notable or not Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't have a strong opinion on the notability of this company, but I'd comment that searches for <Delphi software> and "C++ Builder", perhaps their most notable products bring up many millions of hits, much more than "Embarcadero Technologies". These were developed by the innovative Borland company, which has its own article; the software Delphi (programming language), C++ Builder, and others also have their own well-merited pages. So the company owns some very notable software. Having used Borland's $50 Turbo Pascal (later back-name Turbo Pascal 1.x) and its successors, which include Delphi, I have a strong interest in the software, but no allegiance to Embarcadero. Pol098 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. Certainly the product list could be (completely?) culled. I think it's an important company in the history of Windows development products. peterl (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of their products are definitely notable. I'd say that's true of at least Delphi, C++Builder, JBuilder, and InterBase. On that basis, I would say they are notable - a company which has multiple notable products is therefore itself notable. (If it only had a single notable product, you could argue a company doesn't deserve a separate article from its single notable product; but when a company has multiple notable products, it deserves its own article.) SJK (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large company that has existed for a while and is deeply entwined with many notable subjects. Mentions in RS are pretty common. I have added a bit to the article. Antrocent (♫♬) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references in the article strike me as establishing notability. They're a mix of self-published sources, reports of M/A and financial activity, and routine coverage in industry periodicals which are almost certainly warmed-over press releases. 16:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) (apparently I failed to sign this properly, so doing that now -- RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Taft, Darryl K. (2015-07-29). "Embarcadero Launches Windows 10, IoT Dev Tools". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
2. "Private equity firm tries again to acquire Embarcadero". Network World. International Data Group. 2007-04-06. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
3. Mulligan, Christina (2015-04-07). "Embarcadero focuses on IoT in latest release". SD Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
4. Lardinois, Frederic (2014-03-06). "Embarcadero Launches AppMethod, A New Multi-Device Development Platform For Native Apps". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
5. Jackson, Joab (2014-03-14). "Embarcadero moves into data modeling with CA ERwin buy". PC World. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2015-11-07. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Embarcadero Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The company seems notable although it also seems to have not justfied/bigged up this in the article. The page should be made smaller without the product list and should use more inline citations. So just about a keep, but with some serious cleanup needed and perhaps a note to the major editors on their talk page. RailwayScientist (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Quintin[edit]

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

I couldn't find any independent non-trivial sources for this person— the French Wikipedia had no article, Google Books turned up nothing. Only reference here is an external link to the artist's website. Can anyone find some bona fide sources to add to this article?? KDS4444^Talk 21:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until better can be applied. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best I am finding is this piece of local coverage. The subject is clearly a working artist but I see nothing that meets the WP:ARTIST criteria or broader WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 27 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. The strongest argument is for WP:BLP1E slakr^\ talk / 02:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy Lynn Campbell[edit]

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

fails GNG, WP:NOTNEWS —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a sensible merge target? There's a whole lot of press coverage from September-October 2013 covering being named homecoming queen, but I couldn't find evidence of coverage beyond then, which is required for WP:BLP1E and the WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so - that she was elected homecoming queen is already mentioned at her high school's article, and it seems a bit trivial to mention it in the article about Transgender youth. The part about her being a YouTube personality makes me a bit uncomfortable for BLP reasons (she put up a video crying, then deleted it, then deleted her channel etc). —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and Redirect to Timeline of LGBT history. It looks like there's enough coverage to merit a bulletpoint under 2013 here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- She's not the first transgender girl to be elected homecoming queen though, so I don't know how historic it is for a timeline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails BLP1E - Being crowned queen etc etc isn't really notable (However I word what I really wanna say it still comes out pretty horrible so I won't say more than that.) –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Halmoši[edit]

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

Alas, as an unregistered user I cannot complete the AfD procedure. If I had that possibility, I would argue that the subject does not meet notability criteria. Four of the six linked sources are just rather random articles signed by the author himself, the remaining two are a one sentence mention of being one of several people leaving one company, and a single sentence about being hired by a public office, respectively. This does not really fulfill the criteria of having 'significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject'. Furthermore, although I am aware of the pitfalls or using cross-wiki content as an argument, CS wiki editors have arrived at the same consensus - https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedie:Diskuse_o_smaz%C3%A1n%C3%AD/Adam_Halmo%C5%A1i - (together with a rather nasty emotional outburst by Mr Halmosi himself) 89.176.87.169 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if we take the statements in the article at face value, I don't see the subject passing the WP:GNG bar. Being a news broadcaster for a biggish news station comes close, but does not break it, unless we get some sources speaking about him. No such user (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that the topic meets the WP:GNG. C 679 13:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here passes any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and none of it is sourced well enough to get over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be careful about accusing living persons of things, both in articles and Afd discussions. I can barely follow what went on at the CZ Afd in this machine translation. Perhaps you speak Czech. I certainly don't. But Mr. Halmoši seems to be stating that he's OK with it being deleted in the end, and he was not being abusive, no? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berny Goodheart[edit]

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

Not notable. Article has no third party references. Goodheart wrote what appear to be some obscure and mostly out of print technical course books. Amazon --Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but maybe delete for now simply so it can be restarted better later (if it can, as this has existed since May 2004) as I simply found nothing better than this, this and this. Pinging tagger Dialectric and author David Gerard. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His notability is from pre-1995, therefore requires paper sources to back up. He was an early Unix person known to all at the time and his books were pretty much the standard references in the field. (I was using them at work in 1993 for example. We didn't have the Internet then.) I realise this article needs moar for 2015 as opposed to 2004 ... I'll ask around - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted on my social media "Anyone able to add moar to the Berny Goodheart article on Wikipedia? It's skimpy enough that it's just been put up for deletion, and frankly it needs references to why anyone cares about this guy to stay. Please spread around the old Unix people you know." So hopefully we should be able to turn up Wikipedia-suitable actual references for his notability.

(Anyone here from my link: this is not a vote, please add references to the article :-) ) - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the AUUG journal is available via Google books and yields at least mentions: [22], [23], some of which review his books. He is also mentioned in some O'Reilly books. Given the paucity of information from that time, hopefully these will be sufficient. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this individual is notable, the article doesn't stand on its own as even a stub - it reads like Linked-in profile and has has no citations in 11 years. <Note: I originated this AfD> Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP of questionable notability. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Long Haul. There is already an extant hatnote at flight length pointing to The Long Haul dab page, so will make the necessary changes there. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longhaul[edit]

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

There is only one accessible article linked to this disambiguation page Rob van vee 19:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to flight length and hatnote as necessary. Siuenti (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were additional entries looked for before nomination? This has 3 valid entries (one per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION) and a valid see also. If there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then that's a separate point for a move discussion, not AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's enough here for a disambiguation. That being said, I could see it being merged with The Long Haul, especially because that dab includes just about every entry that the nominated one contains. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging would be perfectly valid. Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robvanvee, Siuenti, could you please look the page over and see if you have changed your mind now it is so different to when nominated? Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it looks better now. Thanks for that. When I nominated it there was only one clickable link and, being new to WP:NPP, I assumed deletion was in order. You'll be glad to know I skip past the disambiguation pages now. Rob van vee 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also, I agree with Tavix, it would probably be better to merge it with The Long Haul for the same reason they stated. Rob van vee 15:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think that flight length is the primary topic but I guess that's a question for Requested Moves. Anyway deletion is not appropriate. Siuenti (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal that combines a few ideas I've seen here. What if we redirect "longhaul" to flight length with a hatnote there linking to The Long Haul and expand the scope of that disambiguation to include "longhaul" (and variants). Thoughts? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine by me. Siuenti (talk) 14:08, 29 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. consensus to delete after relisting DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Al Masri[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines. What little personal info there is is entirely unreferenced; most of the article looks like coatrack promotion of his employer. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This personnality in notable in Tunisia and Algeria with significant coverage Mongiktob (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of that? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better and the company's article will also need attention. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought a French language search might help, given the countries involved. An article in Tunisie-Tribune, "Ooredoo assure la première navigation 4G en Tunisie" (1 Sep 2015) barely mentions him as being present when Oredoo announced a deal. Plumes économiques ("Ooredoo : Youssef Al Masry chapeautera l’exploitation de la filiale Tunisienne", 19 Jan 2015) reports his appointment to Tunisia in three sentences (press statement rehash?) Kapitalis ("Ooredoo fête la réouverture de sa boutique au Lac 2" 23 Apr 2015) mentions him as being at the opening of the firm's shop. None of these is actually about Al Masri himself and none support him having notability independent of the company by which he is employed. Emeraude (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He might be barely notable, but this stub is a horrid mess. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Plainfield, Indiana. Rounded to merge, as there's clearly consensus against outright keeping. How much to merge (if anything) is, as always, up to consensus at the target, and if nothing makes it, WP:RFD can deal with the redirect. slakr^\ talk / 02:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Perry Crossing[edit]

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

non notable shopping center; regs arethe usual local newws pieces. No encyclopedic information DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely unless this can be better improved as I found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, this could be selectively merged to Plainfield, Indiana, which presently has no mention of this mall. This would serve to improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with North America. If not notable enough on its own, then merge to the relevant locality article with redirect. I believe this actually should be our default outcome for (all but very small) malls not independently notable. This could save a lot of these AfDs from even taking place. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One week more to get sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wikienglish123 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikienglish123 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge ~~Merge~~ – to Plainfield, Indiana, which presently has no mention of this mall. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can grudgingly be convinced that a merge to Plainfield, Indiana might be reasonable, but it would have to be a very limited merge, i.e. one sentence mentioning that it exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have changed my !vote to "Selective Merge". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge - Selective merge as per RoySmith and Northamerica1000. Enough local coverage to merit a mention in the city article, but not enough to show notability for a standalone article. Comment - for some reason, the relisting date does not seem to be working in the sort page at AfD, this appeared under 10/27, not the relisting date. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 04:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Cultural Warfare[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG, what coverage I can find seems fairly minimal and routine. Group itself seems to be defunct. Nsteffel (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging Skyerise, Hut 8.5 and Ansh666. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let us wait for improvement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wikienglish123 (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - didn't find anything in the searches to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Bullet Media[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, not notable, only claims inherited notability, but notability is not inherited. References requested since December 2010, and identified as advertisement since January 2013. Clearly no hope of any improvements. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Onel5969 and [email protected] who comment at these subject AfDs as they may be interested. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches on the engines returned a single trivial mention (on Scholar, of all places). Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 04:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bry[edit]

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

The article about a person does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Specifically, the subject of the page has not received "a well-known and significant award or honor," nor have they "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Further, the subject of the page has not received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Wilson1543 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for me. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bry was named Woman of the Year in 2014 by California State Assembly Speaker and ran for city council. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 15:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the article about the Woman of the Year thing, she was one of nine recipients in that particular assembly district. There are 80 assembly districts in California. I'm not sure how that meets Wikipedia's definition of "a well-known and significant award or honor." I'd argue that it's neither well-known or significant, considering that there only seems to be one article about it in an obscure newspaper. Also, the fact that she ran for City Council does not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. Wilson1543 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the analysis by Wilson1543 Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and restart later when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in searches show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Alakbarov[edit]

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

Not notable, not neutral, article seems written by someone closely related Zebras234 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is pure blatant lie. I'm not related to him at all. Moreover, article uses very neutral sources and I would ask admins to check Zebras234 as he often sounds and looks like a sockpuppet.--Azerifactory (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks only show lack of objectivity and a close connection to the subject.--(User talk:Zebras234)•

Looking at your contributions Zebras234, it seems fairly obvious why someone might accuse you of being a sock. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fuad Viento was the original name of this article. According to a post by Azerifactory to my Talk page in March of this year, he is the subject of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by user Yacatisma, so it's true it was not written by Azerifactory, although he has contributed to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very far afield from whether the subject is notable, but neither I nor Azerifactory ever said he created the article. As I stated, he said he was the subject of the article. My comment was in direct response to Azerifactory's comment here that he was not related to the subject. Hard to be more related than be the person. Indeed, I find Azerifactory's comment just below this to be odd. I don't know what he is saying is the "mistake".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took his comment as to not being related to the person who created the article, Yacatisma. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just finding unfair, when articles such as this deleted, while articles like Robina Qureshi, which contains far less quotes and sources and poorly written are available.--Azerifactory (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was mistake and I think current article name is correct. However, you can contact yourself author to ask but since he goes under that name in other websites, that is correct.--Azerifactory (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This article was created by a user blocked for sockpuppetry. Can't see any more than questionable notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.2.255.244 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, I'm not a sockpuppet, admins can check if they want. Moreover, it is very strange that this IP suddenly appeared just to vote in this, while being rarely inactive over these years. Now, your IP's actions sound like sockpuppet.--Azerifactory (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely non-notable. Apart from being born abroad and speaking a number of langauages (which is not notable) there is nothing here at all to even hint at notability. He went to school and university. He joined a party and some campaigns. He has views on political issues. So what? He's no differnet from millions of others in Scotland and the UK. Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite clearly non-notable, despite the bombardment of low quality sources in the article. The essays that he's written, while they may be insightful, are not independent of the subject and therefore to not count towards meeting the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I hope he is now aware that he is not the only activist alone in his quest to save his own Wikipedia page, I discovered this article this morning when the another "activist" tweeted Fuad's tweet in response to his own unrelated nomination, whilst he asks his WP:SPA lackeys to create new accounts, feebly attempt to keep vote and accusing me of locking his page up when I had to request page protection to his AfD nomination due to this. Yet this so-called "anti-bullying" campaigner go out and namecall me and another delete voter via twitter and Facebook a venomous troll, jealous with boring lives, liar, unprofessional whilst tweeting to Wikipedia to try get me banned and expects anybody who knows him to think he is famous enough for Wikipedia whilst liking and retweeting his own posts and claiming that karma will get me soon if this article gets deleted. Yet I never have anything to do with any one of his regular (unsubstantiated) past troll campaign as he claims to nor have met him before. Not forgetting that this is coming from a 41 year old, according to his page.
Delete, for the same reason in my above nomination in terms of quality of sources which like my nomination, are too trivial to make the notability any useful, though it is in a better quality to the one that I nominated AfD (as above). Donnie Park (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet notability requirements as per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinar Aksu[edit]

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

Not notable person. Some references are her personal bolg Zebras234 (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Zebras234 is currently under sockpuppet investigation so I would suggest not deleting this article, especially when it is very constructive and well referenced.--Azerifactory (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The case filed against Zebras234 by Azerifactory has been deleted as frivolous. I have no comment on the notability of Pinar Aksu, which should of course be the focus of this AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything in the article, or through google searches, which suggest she meets either WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. At least four of the links in the article are from websites affiliated to her, like leftproject, Scottish refugee council or Unite against Facism. At least two of the links (this and this) are trivial mentions in fairly identical news stories that she's one of many attending a political event. In the others she gets brief quotes e.g in this link. Socialist worker gives her the most coverage, but it's very questionable whether that's a reliable source (previous discussion suggests it isn't and a left wing political activist being covered in a left wing publication in any case falls short of establishing notability. Valenciano (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely non-notable. She graduated, she joined a political campaign or two, she has opinions. Nothing at all to indicate notability. If she is notable, so are millions of others in the UK and Scotland. Emeraude (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence to establish notability. Zcbeaton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Conelrad (band). slakr^\ talk / 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sluts and Slobs[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or alternatively Redirect to artist article Conelrad (band) per WP:AFDP#Music, nothing indicates the notability guideline for songs is met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are only started when you try to redirect an article to a more appropriate page and get reverted. This clearly does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Also, a deletion discussion is inappropriate as this page (even if deemed not notable) would not be deleted, but redirected to the band's page. I would recommend that you redirect the article and see if any one reverts. This discussion is really not required. MaranoFan (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Fails WP:NALBUMS, plain and simple. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Teen Tamer[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as it seems there's not much even much information about this show and the best links I found were these and with no improvement since February 2009 I'm not seeing any obvious signs of it happening. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (TV).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable programme fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 27 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) 04:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Swenson[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as basically the best I found was this, this, this, this and this and this hasn't changed much since February 2008. Pinging Tewapack and Wisdom89. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/pub/perry-swenson/19/4b0/680 indicates that she was a professional golfer from 2005 to 2011 and is now in insurance. Whether she achieved enough as a golfer to be notable is unclear to me. Nigej (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Nigej: Linkedin fails WP:RS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGOLF and is an orphan article. Tewapack (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGOLF....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 02:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sar Jalal[edit]

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

I'm not quite sure what this article is about. A large water tank? A settlement that grew up around it? In any case, there are no references, and I haven't been able to find anything substantial about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks like a bona fide historical site that might be notable, but I have no clue based on the article what happened there. It seems like the body of the article is copied from a book, and the lead is a list. If this is from someone who isn't good at writing, help is available, but it needs to be sourced, and the article needs to say what it's about, assuming people who aren't from anywhere near Punjab are going to be reading it. If the original author chimes in, or anyone else who can explain this article, it would sure help. Dcs002 (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The opening of the article reads like it's a dab page, but the main body is about the water tank. No notability shown, and the vast majority of the article is a quote taken from a book, so there are copyvio issues. The creator of the article was informed of this discussion, but hasn't edited in over a year, otherwise I'd say userfy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not even sure why was this claimed to be notable and how did it survive for four years on Wikipedia? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found what appears to be another reference to this in The Silk Roads: Highways of Culture and Commerce. Also, Caravanserais along the Grand Trunk Road in Pakistan (near the top of page 176). Certainly, the existing quote needs to be edited to avoid copyright issues, but between those three sources, we've got more than enough to meet WP:GNG, especially taking into account the WP:BIAS against non anglo-european topics, and historical topics which are under-represented in the on-line corpus of literature. The article is a mess, but that means it needs fixing, not deleting. Topics like this are why we are writing an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and massive overhaul per RoySmith. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also mentioned in [24] p. 53, verified geographic location. --Soman (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Merge? Is this the same Sar Jalal that is now called Wah Cantonment, or Wah Cantt? Look under the History section of that article and it says Sar Jalal is its former name. I also found that information on this travel web page for the current Wah Cantonment. My geography and knowledge of history in that area is poor, so please check me on this. If this is correct, then a simple merge with Wah Cantonment would be in order. It would also explain why it's so hard to find information when searching for Sar Jalal. Dcs002 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maini Sorri[edit]

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

Not notable. Has got a little local interest coverage in Uppsala but nothing significant. Outside that she lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article claims lot's of charting but none are good charts. Releases are not on "important" label. Akademia Music Awards are not major, they are a pay for play award farm. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Charting in Europe is not insignificant. Just because it's not an American or UK label or chart does not invalidate notability, appears to have multiple, adequate sources. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw. For the first part, Are any of the claimed charts useable? For the second, thanks for bringing your accusations of cultural bias into it, that's totally irrelevant. The third, which sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use English-language charts to determine the notability of individuals within nations where English is not the first language; they are useful for international notability, but national notability and notability within non-English speaking nations is what we are looking at. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw. Who said anything about English-language charts? Why are you saying we can't use something that no-one has mentioned? Building a strawman? WP:GOODCHARTS includes the likes of Oricon and Gaon. Don't know what those funny symbols are but they sure don't look like English to me. More significantly it also includes Sverigetopplistan, the Swedish national record chart. [25], not English either, unsurprisingly its Swedish. Using the Sök on the page for Sorri comes up with "Inga träffar för sökkriterie: maini sorri." duffbeerforme (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - she is a singer. Her songs have charted. WP:Musicbio.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm inclined to think that DigiListan is a valid enough chart to count for musician-specific notability (we consider plenty of other artists notable whose charting is primarily or entirely from downloads rather than traditional sales of pieces of plastic that can be used to play back music) but since that's apparently a contentious issue, let's revisit the general notability guideline instead. Nothing in WP:N suggests that local sources cannot be used to establish notability; so we have multiple independent secondary sources that have devoted significant coverage to Sorri and her music cited in the article. That's all that's required to establish a subject's notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll add that WP:GOODCHARTS (cited above) specifically says "Many reliable charts are not included on this list," so the fact that the charts cited in the article aren't listed there doesn't necessarily mean they're not good charts. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:58, 31 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✈^discuss 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling out[edit]

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

WP:TNT, This article created for a school project doesn't even define what the subject is - as has been noted on the talk page by two editors. Lots of close paraphrasing on the useless history section as well. The Dissident Aggressor 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a notable concept given the breadth of sourcing available for it. I commented as much in edit summary when I did a pretty major overhaul on this article in 2013 to deal with close paraphrasing concerns. I wrote the history section from scratch at that time, The Dissident Aggressor, and would certainly be chagrined by close paraphrasing! Can you point to specific examples of problems in my writing, or is it just a lingering concern from the 2012 note on the talk page? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me - believing the talk page. The Dissident Aggressor 19:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was quite right. It's just old. :) I rewrote it in response to the {{close paraphrasing}} tag on the page itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable – see sources such as Sociology of Education or Heating Up and Cooling Out at the Community College. WP:TNT is an essay. Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT. Note also the self-referential aspects of this topic. Adjustment of expectations is what's needed here. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 28 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. With WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ifereimi Boladau[edit]

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

Article lacks references altogether. Presumed notability under WP:NSPORT is a rebuttable presumption, and I have not been able to identify the necessary non-trivial coverage of this individual in multiple independent, reliable sources. Failing the appearance of these, it looks like the article should be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 18:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boladau has played for the Ospreys in the Pro 12, a professional competition. See here. The WP:NSPORTS guideline states that "A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered . . .a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995." It appears that Boladau meets the guideline. CUA 27 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a few references from reliable sources, though I think only the ESPNscrum reference is relevant to this discussion. Ospreys is a fully professional team in fully professional competitions.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 27 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. KTC (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McWilliams[edit]

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

Actor who falls under too soon (and I'm pretty sure the 1983 film listed here is for a different Richard McWilliams, given that it is a pretty common name-that title does not even appear on the IMDB listing for him) Wgolf (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no obvious better improvement and the current version is simply not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this actor is still making a name for himself and has not achieved a status which would qualify for a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 04:53, 27 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 Lisa Moscatiello#Discography. For now. Noting that there is a potential for an article of a play with the same name. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent When You Dream[edit]

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Well Kept Secrets, the result was redirect so this article probably isn't notable enough to belong in Wikipedia either. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lisa Moscatiello. An AfD for a different album with only two participants isn't a good guide to notability ofa different album, but I don't see enough to keep here. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm getting quite a few hits for a play by the same name, so I am loathe to use this name on a redirect for a non-notable album. On the album, I am seeing nothing on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 27 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 Lisa Moscatiello#Discography. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Happens After Love[edit]

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Well Kept Secrets, the result was redirect so this article probably isn't notable enough to belong in Wikipedia either. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist. There's a brief Washington Post piece here but I didn't find much else. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I found another source, also from WaPo, here, but that was it. Together, they don't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 27 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 Lisa Moscatiello. Other have been redirected so makes sense just to redirect this (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble from the Start[edit]

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Well Kept Secrets, the result was redirect so this article probably isn't notable enough to belong in Wikipedia either. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than a couple of brief mentions on Highbeam, nothing else on any of the other searches to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 27 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. WP:NPASR KTC (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Death Online[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Nothing substantial in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, though it might be worth redirecting to a mention at its dev's page: Mythic Entertainment. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 20:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I usually stay away from video game articles, but since there was no activity, I thought I'd do some research. Online there isn't much. A couple of listings and brief mention on Books, a couple of mentions on News, that's it. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 27 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. With WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgwater science festival[edit]

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

This event fails WP:GNG. Google News search returns just one hit [26], and that one just mentions the festival in passing. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The involvement of people from two universities and a town council means there should have been significant coverage in independent secondary sources, even if they were local or regional newspapers. I found an article about the 2014 festival. Roches (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - fails notability standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 27 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. Can always be nominated in the future if the condition of the article doesn't improve. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Cement[edit]

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

Effectively unreferenced article about a company which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Searches bring up nothing to support notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, considering this is a 1900s Greece company, it's likely there's better coverage but not English so this will need better attention. Until then, I can only say weak keep if at all but also delete for now until better can be applied as there's also not much better at Greek Wiki. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just looking at the first few Google Books hits finds this, this and this, enough to demonstrate notability. 86.24.88.241 (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - News alone returned over a dozen sources from English, Greek, Israeli and Arabic newspapers/magazines, and that was on the first 3 pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough and reliable sources, passes notability guideline.Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 00:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sta. Lucia Realtors (PCBL)[edit]

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

I do not see enough here to substantiate a notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG.--RioHondo (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if at all as this seems to be acceptable and have potential for better. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest alternative. Merge with Sta. Lucia Realtors for now while sources for the new team are rare.--RioHondo (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirects are an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Saat Rasta Project[edit]

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

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

Proposed public works project, fails WP:CRYSTAL with no secondary sources. Unclear whether this is a single proposed project for the area or one of many. Searching for the name of the space and the name of the architects returns no obvious secondary source coverage. McGeddon (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacob Circle monorail station, the closest known geolocation. And its also mentioned there. But do note that the target suggestion is also a future geolocation on an extension of Line 1 (Mumbai Monorail) scheduled to be functional by December 2015. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have also added The Haji Ali Mahalaxmi Project for same rationale to this AfD. It can be redirected to Mahalaxmi Racecourse if redirect is the consensus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Haji Ali Mahalaxmi Project was added to this nomination page to be considered for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the article look like professional work product to me. I see that the uploading user stated it was his own work product. Not sure how copyright from the country of origin, but that discussion may be needed. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those suspected copyvios are now deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTA; no evidence of significance is really present yet. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Limited discussion, but this is a BLP article with no sources, which means that deletion is mandatory per WP:BLP. Sandstein 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fechner[edit]

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

This person seams to fail WP:GNG. Google News search returns 4 hits, none of which are about this particular person [27]. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Than you should try your search again. Sometimes the artist is credited as Alex Fechner. Okay, his main work is in German language (see his article in German Wikipedia), but his last publications were in English. His forthcoming comic book, an adaptation of the motion picture Sky Sharks will be in English, too. Anyway, what about this results: http://www.splashcomics.de/php/aktuelles/news/25769/alexander_fechner_und_eve_jay_signieren_im_t3_am_258 / http://www.comic-salon.de/archiv_index10.asp?FsID=30&KuenstlerID=52&spr=2 / https://www.xing.com/profile/Alexander_Fechner / https://www.behance.net/AlexanderFechner Cekay (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy for now until this can be noticeably better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 27 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. KTC (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shivshankar Kadadevarmath[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) – Added alt name Jim1138 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individual is not notable. Non-notable acting career, jobs, and positions. Page seems more of a vanity entry with non-notable awards. Much of the page is unsourced and my attempts to locate sources mostly ineffective. Page was created and much of it edited by a SPA. Attempts to discuss issues with the article's creator have not gotten any response. Jim1138 (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient accomplishments; insufficient coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 31 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. Normally, with no discussion, I would close this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but given the copyright issues and history of repeated deletion under minor variations on the title, I'm going to call this a full delete. I am going to stop short of salting the title, however. Should it get recreated and the new version still doesn't pass muster, salting can always be done later. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parasparam-Serial[edit]

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

This is at least the sixth time this article has been created, and the sixth time it consists of copyright-fringing text with no references to reliable sources. (Previous incarnations have been deleted and had their titles salted; see logs at [28] and [29]. The article at Parasparam now covers an unrelated film.) I had a go at finding reliable sources but wasn't successful. Unless someone more familiar with Malayalam TV can point to in-depth coverage on somewhere other than a blog or anonymous content farm, I think we need to delete and salt this version as well. Psychonaut (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG, Ponyo, Gogo Dodo, Shirik, JamesBWatson, and Callanecc: You were all involved in the previous deletions. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in on this discussion? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 27 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Việt Khang[edit]

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

This strikes me as a WP:BLP1E thing. He was arrested and jailed for some song. It got a little press at the time. Article overinflates the so called worldwide movement generated. He was mentioned as an example of a political prisoner in relation to a petition but this article overplays his significance in that event and overplays what was simply one (well signed) petition. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not enough in-depth lasting coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. Right now I agree that this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microquest Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Lacks independent references and has since its creation. One independent source found with GNews mentions it in passing but doesn't support any claims made in the Wikipedia article. clpo13_(talk) 02:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 02:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 02:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging Dialectric and Hillbillyholiday and I would've also notified Enfcer but they're not noticeable active. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, four years without decent refs is too long. Bin it. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a small (but real) software company with on product: HealthQuest. The company may not be notable, but the product sure is. Try searching for Healthquest + billing or EMR (electronic medical record). Some very large hospitals rely on it. Jonathunder (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried your search terms and turned up no RS sources, just incidental mentions and info on unrelated companies in California and New York. If you have found reliable sources for this topic, please list them here.Dialectric (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 02:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Hills Nursery[edit]

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

No indication of notability WP:ORG and written like an advert or press release. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as, although I'm an environmentalist, it's unfortunate to not keep this but I simply see no convincingly better improvement. Pinging Velella. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have made quite a bit of changes to the article. I was wondering if you could help me cite correctly and also get the images to show up? Thank you for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdlink (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisdlink, please see my note at Talk:Nature Hills Nursery. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft - This may be capable of being made notable. It started life as an AfC and should probably still be there as it fails WP:GNG and reads like an advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not seeing the notability here. I also note that it was already declined at AfC for precisely the same reason. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it never made it through the AfC process. It was tagged to be moved to draftspace, but an editor simply removed the tag. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Gonzalez-D'Ross[edit]

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

Unreferenced, poorly formated, biased, uses some peacock terms, doesn't link to any other articles, etc. Without any sources there is no indication of notability. Andise1 (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Google News finds two pieces of local news that quote Gonzalez-D'Ross without covering her in any detail; that's all. Huon (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails GNG, no claim of notability and no references cited. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a non-notable individual (presuming being appointed to the Oklahoma Women of Status Commission isn't a claim to notability - which I don't believe it is). -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acuvue products[edit]

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

No reason to have a listing of Acuvue products on a separate article. Fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE. clpo13_(talk) 01:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE MarnetteD|Talk 02:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement for a separate article. Pinging Fram and Hillbillyholiday. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many WP:Reasons. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:02, 27 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. Clear consensus for deletion; non-notable subject per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Wortell[edit]

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

Non-notable performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. References are only mentions or not independent of subject. clpo13_(talk) 01:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails the policies mentioned by the nom. GNews shows only mentions in passing, primarily in local media too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally proposed this article for deletion because this performer fails WP:NACTOR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Vrac (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could support keeping this article if there were WP:RS, but it does not seem that there are.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 27 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. Withdrawing means nothing when there's delete votes present, Anyway sources have been provided so obvious keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Msafiri Zawose[edit]

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

Lots of passing mentions and social media references but no actual reliable sources that show the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Maybe there is material in his national media but someone needs to cite itit can not be assumed. Jbh ^Talk 14:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - The newly provided African Voices documentaries are god enough to Keep the article. Integrating the material into the article would differentiate it from the vast number of minor musicians and bands we see here. Jbh ^Talk 00:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artist has performed at WOMAD, he is a part of the legend of Tanzanian traditional music artists, CNN and BBC have done documentaries on him. He is performing at Center Stage 2016. still not noteworthy? Irin.simon (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing notable found on Google news or Google. Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no obvious better improvement but draft and userfy if needed. Pinging Wikicology. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of the article meet WP:GNG per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. He is a prominent Go go musician in Tanzania. I found Campa Bay Times, All Africa, Daily Nation and this, The Citizen Magazine, Tanzania Today, CNN to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC as per [30], [31], [32], [33]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources shown by User:Northamerica1000. @Jbhunley, CerealKillerYum, Jimfbleak, and SwisterTwister: - would you have any comment about those sources? Together, I think, they scrape enough to pass GNG (in-depth, non-local media coverage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I withdrew my nomination and !voted 'Keep' four days ago based on a couple of in depth CNN documentaries the creator of the article found. Jbh ^Talk 01:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks, I note that most of the sources seem to be interviews just reporting or summarising what he has said. I won't lose sleep if this goes through, but it's a bit flimsy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems known in Tanzania, how notable he is, relative to other Tanzanian musicians, is more difficult to assess. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:20, 31 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. The "delete" reasons are in line with Wikipedia policies & guidelines, while the "keeps" (every one of which is from a single purpose account existing solely to oppose this deletion nomination) aren't: "I know this product very well", " Software with a huge history has a right to be in Wikipedia", etc, do nothing whatever to suggest notability by Wikipedia standards. Some of the comments (e.g. "it gives some actual information for clients") even seem to suggest that the purpose is to use Wikipedia for publicity purposes, which if anything strengthens the case for deletion, not for keeping. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protrader[edit]

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

Difficult to see notability here. Lots of refs but mostly within a very niche market and most seem to be re-publishing press releases or product evaluation. I can see nothing here that even meets WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Starting and the article and working out, there seem to be a bunch of sources, but almost all of them seem self-published or from non-reliable sources. There may be some good sources with depth out there, but I've not yet seen them. The fact that it was deleted back in 2011 makes my weak delete a regular one. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in any case as I'm not seeing much else aside from some News links. Pinging Jac16888 and Whpq. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I know Protrader is widely known in financial and trading spheres. It provides full functionality for banks and brokerage businesses. This article must be saved because it gives some actual information for clients and those people, who are interested in.Proannie (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)— Proannie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I think info about so famous product must be. Wiki - informational encyclopedia and people must can to know about such things. Narada Lefvf (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)— Narada Lefvf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I know this product very well. It's good to see some info about company in wiki. I can't imagine that someone call Forexmagnates or Bloomberg not reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahnitskiy (talk • contribs) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Mahnitskiy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Strongly disagree with the first three participants of the talk. This article is very informative and reflects the essence of the product. Protrader is a comprehensive trading solution well known for its wide functionality that grows month-by-month, huge list of various integrations and full customization. This product provides traders with really good market data and news feeds. Therefore, I believe traders must know about Protrader by reading this article through Wikipedia worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nktrader (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — Nktrader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Corp spam, fails WP:NCOMPANY, unreliable sources provide what little coverage there is. Keep votes seem to come for likely COI SPAs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable (COI). Product announcements, directory listings and other self-published information don't establish notability. No in-depth coverage found. GermanJoe (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Software with a huge history has a right to be in Wikipedia. I found that Protrader development started from 2005 by PFSOFT, at least it was mentioned as a stanalone software. (https://web.archive.org/web/20051101003849/http://www.pfsoft.com/). By the way, according to webarhive, they developed well till ourdays. Not sure that the fact of less popularity among their sphere could be the reason to delete information about it. I'd rather recomment authors to edit their article to put it in Wikipedia, more descriptional format.Themetis (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)— Themetis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Try to look at, for example, DMOZ directory. It's a authoritative source with quality moderation. And you'll see Protrader there (http://www.dmoz.org/search/?q=protrader.com).ArtTiger (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)— ArtTiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ELegalix[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT, sourced entirely with related organizations' websites. clpo13_(talk) 01:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom ;) Vrac (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging Czar who is interested with this. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Stafuka[edit]

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

My researches couldn't find anything notable. Article also contains conflict of interest materials. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My PROD was reverted for no reason. I couldn't find any good sources to improve it, so I'm at a total loss how to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Voice of Albania is a singing competition, and he didn't win. Only one album; unsure if Albanian label is major. Fails WP:MUSIC. Maybe someday, but WP:TOOSOON. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 29 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.