Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 October	31 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 Procedural close Incorrect venue – take it to WP:MFD. (User talk pages are generally not deleted.) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Basheer khatib[edit]

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

not true Basheer khatib (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Wynnum[edit]

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

Non-notable micronation, most of the sources cited don't even refer to it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I live just up the road from this and wasn't aware. Textbook WP:MADEUP case, as shown by the lack of reliable coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the supposed micronation's website clearly demonstrates this is all tongue-in-cheek. This could maybe justify a sentence in the Wynnum, Queensland article, but certainly not the basis for an article. Maybe redirect to an anchor point in List of micronations. Aspirex (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having declared independence in 2014 - we must have missed it! Epistemos (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone could add a line about this to the parent particle, but I think that's about the best we can do until there's more coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:17, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silvano Bortolazzi[edit]

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

Self-published books (1) and sources(2 which I removed from page), fails WP:AUTHOR. Please note, "Edizioni Giuseppe Laterza" is not the famous "Laterza Editore" but a lucky homonym. Vituzzu (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. Pinging past users Zpeopleheart, Oshwah, Clpo13, RichardOSmith and Masssly. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability per WP:AUTHOR. clpo13_(talk) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. I found this source (translated to English), but it doesn't appear to be a secondary source - it looks to be either hosted by the person's publisher, maybe original research? The only source I found that I could assert to be secondary is this one (again, translated), which is fine and dandy but it doesn't cover the area that makes the person notable. It also doesn't establish significant coverage with this author, which is required to asset notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything that would show notability. Admittedly, my knowledge of the world of poetry in modern Italy is vague. There is mention of a poetry prize from Viareggio - apparently a well-known prize, but he was put forth as a candidate, he did not win. [1] LaMona (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poet on Wikipedia? Nevermore! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 23:18, 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. Perhaps redirect somewhere or recreate as a dab, but this might need more discussion. Sandstein 06:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific language[edit]

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

WP:V & WP:NOR Rob van vee 22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constructed language. Artw (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why just constructed language? More often it means something else; see here, here, etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scientific programming language per below. Artw (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to Scientific programming language. This is just the article creator's definition. I was tempted to suggest redirecting to Academic writing, but it's not quite the same thing, and that article doesn't appear to be all that great itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not a disambiguation page with links to Academic writing, Scientific programming language and Constructed language? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because dab pages are not for sort of "semi-synonyms", WP:partial title matches and WP:original research, respectively. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be original research or inaccurate, unless sources are cited. Scientific programming language was at this title for seven years until moved recently to be replaced by this article; this title should be redirected to that article (moved without discussion, but the new title is an improvement) or made into a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. There are enough references to the programming meaning.[2][3] I'm changing my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. True, a programmer, in professional context, can say "language" instead of "programming language", and "scientific language" instead of "scientific programming language". But this is marginal, isn't it? In most cases, "scientific language" is used for the language of science. Two links were given by me; for more, just google "scientific language". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I agree with Tsirel's point. Andrew D. (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the ideas currently floating about seem mistaken as they are not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A fresh start would be better than such confusion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an article Scientific writing, and the primary meaning of "scientific language" is probably a subtopic of that. Disambiguate? Peter James (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got somewhat puzzled: why the two articles, "Scientific writing" and "Academic writing"? Where is the boundary between these topics? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the difference between academia and science, some overlap but different topics; merging would result in a more complete (still unbalanced and inadequately sourced) article, but most of the academic writing article is unlikely to have much relevance to scientific writing. Peter James (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific writing is getting warm but that currently quite shallow and about the style used in journals. IMO, the primary topic here is what we find in books such as Scientific Babel: The language of science from the fall of Latin to the rise of English; The Language of Science; Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. These are concerned with much broader issues about the way that scientists communicate, both now and in the past. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I was naively thinking that "academic" = "scientific" :-) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A short stub that seems to be a little-used umbrella term for two topics witht heir own article. Maybe it would just be easier to put in a "see also" on constructed language and conlang. RailwayScientist (talk) 17:33, 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Capelli[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio. Nominations no longer count as although the case is made in the article that she passes pb#3 she does not get credited in imbd or our own articles for the priductions she is claimed to have appeared in. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - well known, 16!!!x interwiki, many nominations to awards. Penthouse Pet and also modeled for other men's magazines, including Perfect 10 and the UK magazine Men's World. Capelli had a recurring role on the television series Battle Dome and has appeared mainstream feature films such as Van Wilder and Not Another Teen Movie. Notable. This AfD is ridiculous. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete er the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - I don't know that the subject here ever actually appeared on the TV show Battle Dome or not, and she apparently had mostly (if not exclusively) minor roles in the mainstream films that she appeared in. A redirect appears to be the best choice for this article at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per established practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April Flowers[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio. Nominations no longer count Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Byrne[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well known, 13x interwiki, many nominations to awards. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Subtropical-man. If the number of interwiki links is really important, then we should respect the consensus against inclusion, since more than 250 other wikis do not have an article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Marie Rios[edit]

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

Scene awards and nominations no longer cut the pornbio mustard Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails pornbio Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won of award, many nominations of award, well known, 15x interwiki, Rios was featured in the music video for Mark Ronson's 2003 debut single "Ooh Wee", playing the part of singer Nate Dogg's girlfriend.[9] She also had a non-speaking role as a stripper in an episode of FOX's 2003 television series Skin.[9] Rios has hosted radio shows for KSEXradio and Playboy Radio and TV shows for the Spice Channel and Playboy TV. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stunning as she is unfortunately looks don't count towards notability, per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails GNG with only passing mentions in independent reliable media. Porn trade press coverage appears to be republished press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spartaz and Gene03k, who pretty much hit the nail on the head. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:31, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Chumburidze[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's only doing his job. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:39, 30 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£} 21:42, 30 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£} 21:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing better. BTW simply a hint, Wikicology, consider adding the geographic location, in this case Georgia (country), with the deletion sorting (as is shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat). SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in Georgian or Russian. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Wikimandia , fails notability guidelines. H^akan·IST 08:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails PORNBIO with listed award wins; no claims made to iconic or groundbreaking status. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Rhodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Scene awards no longer count so fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to fulfil the WP:PORNBIO criteria adequately. Rhodes appeared in a very large number of films in the 2000s and was named in the titles of several of them (e.g.: "Virtual Sex with Alicia Rhodes", " When Layla Jade Met Alicia Rhodes"). She also won a number of non-scene awards (e.g.: best actress, female performer of the year) and made regular appearances on digital TV. Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stunning as she is unfortunately looks don't count towards notability, per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO ~~particularly because her UKAFTA award was for a video that doesn't exist~~. The UKAFTA is notoriously insignificant, and at least one award recipient is open about the fact that his "honor" was bought-and-paid-for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whatever one thinks about the UK Adult Film and Television Awards, the award in question there was a scene award that doesn't qualify under the current PORNBIO standards. The other apparent award win is for a simple online poll in a website's user forum. Guy1890 (talk) 05:34, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rrahim Pacolli[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NPOL. His is an appointed postion. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm simply not seeing any better improvement. Pinging other tagger MrX. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found three sources, but the coverage is slight and not biographical. Fails WP:BASIC.- Mr X 11:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. Completely minor role. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 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 redirect to List of Penthouse Pets (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Vixen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails gng and pornbio. Howard stern interviews are not going t get you over the gng and the new york post articles mentions her in passing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well known, 14x interwiki, many nominations to awards, Penthouse Pet of the Year for 2010, She was a presenter at the X-Rated Critics Organization's and appeared on The Naughty Show and The Howard Stern Show. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record none of this has any policy basis at all.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets: sources do exist, but most only cover the subject because she won the Penthouse Pet of the Year award, not because they deem her significant. Sure, Penthouse isn't an insignificant journal, but promotional or affiliated coverage does not count. Esquivalience ^t 00:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect more or less per Esquivalience. That's the standard outcome for Pets who don't otherwise meet PORNBIO or the GNG. Fewer than half the Pets of the year have individual articles, and even some Playmates of the year have been redirected to Playmate lists. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - While I am still not willing to concede that being a Penthouse Pet of the Year is non-notable, it still appears (since the last AfD on this subject just last month) that the best option at this time for this article would be to redirect it. Guy1890 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Seems the norm for these so may aswell be redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nica Noelle[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio. Being interviewed is primary and doesnt count. Being a columnist doesnt count unless someone writes about your content and being nominated does not count anymore Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article easily meets both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. It is well sourced. The nomination for AFD is questionable. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD his hardly questionable. I'm undecided, but the subject fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. Several of the porn trade sources appear to be republished press releases. However, notability per WP:CREATIVE may be claimed. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly details that she is more than just a performer. For starters, she co-founded several notable companies, some of which have either won awards for their films (Sweetheart Video, Sweet Sinner) or have won awards themselves as a company (Girl Candy Films). Also, "being a columnist doesn't count unless someone writes about your content"...is this a guideline? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant [guideline doesn't give credit for being a published columnist Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you mentioned a guideline that doesn't prove your point? Anyway, point #3 of that guideline clearly states: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", which she indeed passes. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per argument by Erpert and MarnetteD. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a nice amount of secondary source coverage, at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject here has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - namely in The Huffington Post & Salon. Also, the subject's body of work so far "has won significant critical attention" - namely a significant number of awards and nominations for films made by Sweetheart Video (pre-late 2011) and for the film series Lesbian Adventures. Guy1890 (talk) 04:18, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa-Ashley[edit]

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

The two sources are aabout people being prosecuted in error not this person. Therefore does not pass pornbio or gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has been very active in anti-pornography prosecution, this has made her notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has not just been one trial, it has bee at least 5 US trials and one UK. This pattern of activism has made her notable. Her physical attributes are also very relevant , since this is what has lead to the prosecution in the first place.

UPDATE - edit warring? Somebody is removing productive edits on this page in an unproductive fashion.

I added well documented discussion of her activism in preventing overzealous porn prosecution in conservative districts. These can still be seen in previous version of the page. I documented it with bona fide and highly reliable sources - legitimate newspapers such as the Guardian, and US court documents, which are both public records and highly reliable and verifiable. This is a demonstration of her notability; she is well known as an activist in this regard. her notability had been in dispute, and this addressed that issue.

I would revert these edits removing this, but i don't want to contribute to edit warring, so I will wait a few days. in the mean time, I am posting this to stimulate discussion, and allow the individual who did this to explain why these highly documented, neutral objective, and verifiable discussionof her notable activism in this area should be removed. (Assuming it wasn't just vandalism, which i don think so, but is a possibility too)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom'a accurate assessment. Only claim of notability is being caught up in a non-notable prosecution, and that's not enough to sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsubstantiated, and seems to be a willful mispresentation of the facts: it is not "a" non-notable prosecution. It is at least 6, 5 in the US and one in the UK - TWO countries. They ARE notable - they received wide press coverage as documented by prominent newspaper coverage.

Who decides notability? A single user (Mr Wolfowitz)? The facts, should speak louder than the unsubstantiated (and incorrect in significant aspects) opinion of one user who provided no justification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Peck and New River[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable music article as the best I found was this, this, this and this. Pinging past editors Sogospelman, Eliz81 and Musdan77 and also users interested with this topic Michig, The Cross Bearer and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This group fronted by Karen Peck is clearly notable for inclusion, with regards to GNG and BAND, where they have won GMA Dove Awards three times searching for Karen Peck. They have got three reviews from Cross Rhythms, here, here, and here, and two reviews from New Release Today, here and here.The Cross Bearer (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - http://www.musictimes.com/articles/12746/20141018/karen-peck-new-river-2014-fall-tour-dates-full-schedule.htm won the Southern Gospel Song of the Year at the 2014 Dove Awards for "Revival". Fringe category and without substantial press. No AllMusic reviews: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/karen-peck-amp-new-river-mn0000356418 Nothing at Jesus Freak Hideout, http://jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/default.asp?STARTLETTER=K, but Southern Gospel isn't their thing. Cross Rhytms is a UK magazine and they dabble in a wider range of Christian music> they have a short news item: http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/news/Change_Of_Career/56703/p1/ and an artist entry with three staff reviews: http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/artists/Karen_Peck_And_New_River/9800/. Significant coverage on a Southern Gospel website http://www.homecomingmagazine.com/article/karen-peck-new-river-three-for-the-road/ and a review in a fringe magazine: http://www.southerngospeljournal.com/archives/21068. That's enough for me to assume that the group could be sufficiently know. The quality of the article will have to be addressed. I would have checked NRT next. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no interest in Christian music, but a few minutes of Google searching convinced me that the subject is notable. Apparently Peck has received multiple Grammy nominations, there's an Allmusic bio which can be used to confirm many of the statements in the article, as well as an album review of one of her Grammy-nominated albums, half a page in The Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music, other awards and noms ([4], [5]), a page in the book This Is My Story: 146 of the World's Greatest Gospel Singers, coverage in Stories Behind the Traditions and Songs of Easter, and another book, included in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, a review on Billboard, a brief news item from Billboard. Convincing enough to establish notability, and quite frankly anyone else should have been able to find all this. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is enough coverage [6] to support an article, although the article needs major improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Heart Institute[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this, this and this. It's also questionably whether this place still exists as the two websites are now closed and because it seems it was bought in 2012 and may have been changed. Pinging past user Iselilja and medical users Drchriswilliams and Doc James and I'm also not sure whether Indian users Yash!, Sanskari, Human3015, SpacemanSpiff and AusLondonder can comment. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Shalby Hospital. Actually this hospital does existed, This Times of India news tells all story of the hospital. It seems hospital was notable when existed but now it has been sold to Shalby Hospital since 2012. It was first luxury corporate hospital of Ahmedabad. --Human3015^TALK 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have tried to improve the condition of the article. The hospital is quite notable and deserves to have a separate article. It was the first corporate hospital in the state and has performed a massive number of procedures. After being acquired, the name of the institute doesn't seem to have changed and it still operates under the name of Krishna Hospital. The hospital is functional and still one of the prominent hospitals in the state. The hospital has received enough recognition and is historically significant. Ya sh! 05:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the ping. The institute seems notable in its own right. An organisation does not cease to be notable when it ceases to exist. An encyclopaedia is timeless. AusLondonder (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~I added a second article from the Times of India, to help towards having some WP:CORPDEPTH. Because~~ Many of the other sources that have been used are self-published, there were many recently added parts of the article that had a heavily promotional tone, so I have made copy edits to attempt to address this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out that the reference I added was, in fact relating to a different hospital. More source reliable sources are needed to establish WP:CORPDEPTH Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After recent development in article I will change my !vote to keep. Even in my first comment I said hospital was notable when existed. But even if it is ceased to exist still as AusLondener said article can be kept on it. Also article has been improved. --Human3015^TALK 15:37, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Laine[edit]

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

Doesnt appear to npass pornbio or gng. The only proper source is a local news interview so counts as a primary source which doees not count to notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known, 12x interwiki, several nominations to awards, Penthouse Pet, appeared on The Howard Stern Show. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award nominations. Fails GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Citations in the article are low quality or passing mentions. Independent searches yield only passing mentions. As for Subtropical-man's keep rationale, we've been through all this before. Penthouse Pets are not inherently notable. Appearing on Howard Stern doesn't establish notability. And inclusion elsewhere on Wikipedia is laughable. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stunning as she is unfortunately looks don't count towards notability, per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - While I haven't done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, the best option at this time appears to be a redirect. Guy1890 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per Gene93k's accurate analysis and as the established standard outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:11, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech football game[edit]

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

Newly created article for a just-played, regular season game - it's not notable (at least not yet), per WP:EVENT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:TOOSOON. Content can be as easily reflected at, e.g., Florida State–Georgia Tech football rivalry, 2015 Florida State Seminoles football team, and / or 2015 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team. If and when continuing coverage of this single game is established, a separate article may be appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator JohnInDC's rationale. Nicely said. Unless and until continuing significant coverage is established, content may find a home in either of the two 2015 season articles for the Noles and Jackets and the Jackets-Noles rivalry article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a GT-FSU rivalry article? I had no idea that was a rivalry. That might need an AfD too. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:3851:EF05:A535:BCC1 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2015 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team#Game summaries with any useful content being moved to the latter location. Since there is some useful content, it would be best if someone transfers it to the season article before this AfD closes. Cbl62 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to rivalry page for exactly the same reasons that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State Miracle met with the same fate last week. Aspirex (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources cited shows me that the article is incomplete and should be removed at this point. If sources come online then we could evaluate them for notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 11:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Queen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like advertising based on fake sources The Banner talk 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some references from CNN Travel, Huffington Post, IBTimes. Much more coverage can be found in Thai national newspaper websites (Bangkok Post, The Nation). I have also deleted the original references which are unrelated to this article. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most educational and encyclopedic. Thanks to Lerdsuwa for the improvements, much appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems notable, acceptable and sourced. Pinging past users Bearcat, Mabalu, Narutoloveshinata5 and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy close as keep The smell of advertising is still there but at least it is now based on reliable sources (that I did not find) The Banner talk 10:13, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Gjergjaj[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX and GNG since there's a lack of significant independent coverage. I question the independence of a local paper that claims he is widely regarded as the best heavyweight fighter in the world.Mdtemp (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments and reasons. The article labeled as "Switzerland honours Arnold Gjergjaj" is a bit misleading--the Swiss town of 15,000 inhabitants where he lives gave him an award. He may became a notable boxer (under WP guidelines), but he's not there yet. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Close but no cigar. If there's just one more good piece of info, then it probably qualifies. Tippex for the soul (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every day AfD warnings are stuck on new user accounts as their welcome to Wikipedia. This one, however, is my favorite so far. Not only is there zero mention of this AfD on the creators talk page, there's no welcome, no talk. And they've been here since October 18th!!! Well, done! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:01, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Universe 2016[edit]

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

Supposed future beauty pageant with no date, no venue and zero sources. Search for sources gets only a Facebook page. A check of blue-linked contestants makes me suspect this is a hoax. WP:V failure. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Indeed no serious sources on Google, looks like a hoax. There is not even an article about the parent Miss Grand Universe. The Banner talk 19:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete: if this were a real event, one would expect to be able to find some source reporting on the crowning last year of the alleged incumbent. No such luck. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Kerim Edilov[edit]

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

Non-notable mixed martial artist - no top tier fights - does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. His first top tier fight is scheduled for next year in the UFC. Coverage is routine sports reporting so fails GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:40, 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. This is the first time it's been created, salting seems like overkill. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3CS invention[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Reads like an advertisement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and WP:SALT conflict of interest spammer. see also 3CS Invention. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI and WP:ADVERT.--3 of ♦ _{I go}^first 21:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A clear case for delete, but salting the title may not be necessary if someone explains to the article creator why the last page was deleted (and this one almost certainly will be as well), namely that it fails to meet the notability standard / golden rule. I see no reason to assume this isn't just a case of a new editor not understanding the relevant policies. And I'll take it upon myself to do the explaining. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:29, 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 Speedy delete per CSD G5 (non-admin closure) -- Kethrus |talk to me

Tina Nibbana[edit]

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

Notability claimed but not demonstrated. Much of the material available online is from Amazon, blogs, social media and the like. Aside from the fact that the article reads like an advertisement, I do not believe that the subject satisfies WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 18:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NARTIST. I could find nothing of substance about the subject. The article creator improperly removed a {{blpprod}} I had placed earlier when there were no sources at all [7]. Still not even one reliable source in the article. Jbh ^Talk 19:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, the claim of being "considered one of Americas best portrait photographers" is clearly false. There's no news articles on her at all (as far as I can see). -- Kethrus |talk to me 17:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could be a G11. Speedy deleted multiple times from eswiki going back to 2010. Vrac (talk) 18:03, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders-Trump dream ticket[edit]

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

A Facebook page with 8 likes, plus one columnist's opinion does not warrant an article to be created on the US presidential election. Cahk (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of articles about this. I just cherrypicked two examples. I contest this deletion. --ßlaïsi Furstqurzel (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTBLOG among many others. It can be fun for people to speculate about an impossibility like this but WikiP is not the place to do that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. BMK (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted: article creator has been indeffed for trolling. [8] BMK (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the above logic. This is essentially speculation. /wia /tlk /cntrb 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only speculation, but trivial, silly and obscure speculation. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just speculation at this point, is next to impossible considering how their views differ a lot on many issues.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 8:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP1E. One news cycle of news about this hypothetical campaign is not worthy of its own article. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vathsan[edit]

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

no evidence for notability--music director of one film is not enough unless the individual receives a major award for it. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement here. Pinging speedy taggers Everymorning and Jbhunley. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linked references are passing mentions at best. I could find nothing after searching on 'Jack Vathsan' as well as alternate spellings and variations of his given name. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Jbh ^Talk 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No any reliable source or sources that establish the notability, and per music-bio to have the page on the Wikipedia.Justice007 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everymorning and Jbhunley, There are so many profiles with just one movies in Wikipedia. Everymorning has removed the speedy deletion in the history. and now he has put it for deletion. There is no consistency. Jbhunley Wanted more articles and I have provided. Now Everymorning wants it to be deleted. This person has just signed 2 agreements and this page would be created again with Citation. I read the Notability section and I think this article can stay because of the Hindu article. I have been asking this question again and again. What should I do to keep this article? Because, for the next projects I dont want to keep creating articles. Statisticallyhigh (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Statisticallyhigh: I discussed this very issue with you on my talk page when you asked about fixing up the article. There are just not enough sources to show notability. You have linked an article that mentions him and has a brief non-biographical quote. The other sources are a picture, his Facebook page and a very short article about the movie. This is not significant coverage - not even close. Without several paragraphs of coverage about him there is no chance of passing the notability criteria. If you can find that I will reconsider my !vote. If he gets significant coverage later then create the article then, if it is recreated without that coverage it will be speedy deleted per WP:CSD g4 Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion (Assuming this AfD results in deletion.) Jbh ^Talk 13:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Originally I tagged it for speedy deletion when there were no sources, but after a reliable one was added I removed the speedy as I thought this had established a credible claim of significance. Just thought I should clarify this. Everymorning (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Everymorning Here is the thing. Earlier nobody has managed this page properly.The Hindu article is a proper citation if i have read the notable section correctly.But if I understand Wikipedia, it is an open source online encyclopedia; and not only for celebrities who have won awards and have millions of fans. This will be against the founder's vision. Vachathi incident has shook the country (India) and a movie on such an incident should be accessible to common people. He has just signed an agreement for his next album. I'll update it once it is out on a reliable site. I'll suggest you guys to remove the deletion tag and keep this page on your watchlist. It was an article which was fine. I just asked help from Jbhunley for the other template issues and it has led to this. Please check this article now, I have removed the one's without Citation.

Statisticallyhigh (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Statisticallyhigh: Asking for help did not lead to the AfD or only insomuch as any edits to the article would have brought it up on others' watch lists or on WP:Recent changes. Another editor nominated the article because they saw it did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It is possible they saw all of the {{find sources}} I placed on the talk page and also saw there was no WP:RS material for the article. I do not know and it does not matter.

At this point complaining about 'the founders vision' and making unsupported claims of 'upcoming projects' will not affect the outcome of this AfD. If you want to save the article do what I have said repeatedly. Go find some reliable sources that talk about this person The Hindu article is not sufficient. You need several articles in good newspapers, together having several paragraphs of information talking about the subject. There is no 'updating once it comes out on a reliable site'. The material must exist in reliable sources before an article may exist. Jbh ^Talk 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please read the below points and tell where it mentions about how notable a person has to be? Wikipedia:Notability

Excessive quote from WP:N

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]

Statisticallyhigh (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article do not meet the coverage requirement. That is why the article was nominated and why other editors are voting delete. Long quotes will not change that. If you wish to discuss notability criteria the place to do that is Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Jbh ^Talk 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley So what do you suggest we do now? unfortunately this is all we have. Statisticallyhigh (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Statisticallyhigh: The article will likely be deleted as a result of this discussion. If you can come up with 3 or 4 WP:RS sources that discuss him in detail - not just a quote or a passing mention but a couple of paragraphs - then you can recreate the article using those sources. If the article is recreated without new sources it will end up getting speedily deleted per WP:G4. If their are not several sources and they do not discuss him in detail chances are the article will be brought back to WP:AFD.

I would suggest you make a draft article at User:Statisticallyhigh/Jack Vathsan or Draft:Jack Vathsan and collect sources there. I will be glad to help you review the draft/sourcing once you have collected the material. Jbh ^Talk 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Jbhunley Thanks for your time, I have saved the draft. But, I still vote to keep. Just before you or anyone deletes, This is the mention on Hindu:-

Music director Jackson: I have used melody to capture the poignant mood of the film. One of the songs is dedicated to the Vachaathi incident — all the songs take the film forward without hindering the pace. The background music is the backbone of the film.

Music highlights

It is heartening to note that the new music director Jackson has scored all the six songs based on Carnatic ragas. ‘Manidhargale' in Harikambodhi has been rendered well by Prabhakar. ‘Chirumalligai, also in the same raga, sung by Surmugi and Devi, is pleasant. ‘Thodu Thodu Mella,' in Chalanattai, is a romantic number by Hemambika and Krishnamurthy. The lyrics of ‘Machakanni' in Suddha Dhanyasi seem to suggest that the song is sung before the wedding of the lead pair — it is sung by Sampkeerthan. ‘Uyirasai' in Gambhira Nattai is sung by Senthildas — it conveys why the lovers split. The song focussing on the gruesome incident is in raga Panthuvarali with the background music in Poorna Panjamam — it is sung by Sampkeerthan with feeling.

Statisticallyhigh (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep the draft on my watch list. For reference the material you quote consists of a 'mere quote' and a 'passing mention' and is not at all useful for establishing notability. It might be useful for an article about the movie or a review of the sound track though. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 21:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley, thanks. Statisticallyhigh (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are zero reliable sources as of now. I'd also suggest a redirect to the only film released. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AMILTON DE CRISTO. As usual with speedies, there is no predjudice against re-creation by an editor who is not blocked or banned provided the article clearly demonstrates the topic's notability and all the other usial rules are followed. Non banned/blocked editors with conflicts of interest would becwise to create a draft article and submit it for review via articles for creation. (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IETBB[edit]

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

This article is possibly vandalism across different Wikipedia projects and has very few sources to back it up thus possibly failing notability. Possible conflict of interest may exist with regards to the author and two other users involved in the development of this article. Shalir Salim (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles in the "wrong" languages should be nominated for speedy or regular deletion on the respective Wikis. Editors who speak those languages may be needed. A steward or other globally-privilaged account should consider warning the editor or, if policies and guidelines dictate, blocking the account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Appears to be notable after taking thorough read -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts[edit]

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

Non notable college at a university. -- Kethrus |talk to me 15:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 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.

University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts[edit]

The result was Speedy keep Withdrawn -- Kethrus |talk to me 15:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable college, no notability is asserted, and the references don't assert much (if any) notability. -- Kethrus |talk to me 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and snow close. We should get rid of this 17,000-student college right after we get rid of all those Oxford and Cambridge colleges with only a couple hundred students each. They're hardly noticeable so they can't be notable. (See also Michigan_State_University_academics#Organization, University_of_Michigan#Academics) Rmhermen (talk) 15:42, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seema K. Chakrabortyy[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to have met WP:NACTOR. Couldn't find any significant coverage too. Think this should be deleted. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable or significant. Vinay089 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

and thru WP:INDAFD: "Seema Chakraborty"

Delete while her work seems verifiable through available sources and such as The Hindu confirms her award, her roles are minor and she has not received the hoped-for wider coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editors. MichaelQSchmidt's assessment is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Lecointe[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. XXN, 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement and the only still active and pingable user seems to be TubularWorld. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF: there is no substantive biographical information in this WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches turned up enough to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Berwick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Jeffrey Berwick is nothing short of a confidence trickster, and not to delete this article is nothing short of helping the fraudster promote his persona. Delete. EDIT: Here's a proof of his fraud: [9] --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as the individual does seem to be notable, but the article hasn't been improved much (if at all) since the last nomination, which it should have been. I must note, your personal opinions on him that are poorly sourced (vimeo is not a reliable source) are not of interest, and shouldn't really be brought up in a deletion discussion. Strong Keep Changed vote, article has been improved significantly ans fully displays notability. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually the source is not Vimeo, the source is Berwick himself talking about a third vocation not listed in the entry, "the selling of passport expediting" which according to him has not come to fruition. The Berwick entry needs to be removed because Wikipedia's BLP guidelines (and process) prevents the finding and representation of truth. It is not the place of an encyclopedia to make judgements about living people. It is a fundamental imperative that the content of an encyclopedia be be correct and truthful! The fact this entry exists demonstrates that the Wikiepdia process is broken and lacks credibility (even if its used pervasively). Kitatom (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitatom: Sorry, but the source is Vimeo, or more specifically, a user of Vimeo. This is not reliable, see WP:RS. Either way, what he's done regarding that is not reason for it to be deleted from Wikipedia. -- Kethrus |talk to me 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem with the Wikipeida process not Berwick; the reason for this entry to be deleted is that it cannot be truthful within the context of Wikipedia's constraints. Kitatom (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think a month is too fast to renominate an article that was a clear keep (see Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion which suggests 6 months). I've edited the article and added more reliable sources. The guy is mentioned in a ton of reliable sources. Even if a number of his plans have failed, that doesn't make him not notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The failure has to be expressed; to do that you are going against BLP or you have to Critically Think and do research by connecting articles in a timeline and chronology. Many of the Berwick secondary sources come from Berwick via a press release with follow on coverage that picked up the announcement. You can announce and say whatever your want, that is not fact. Nefariously notable would be he same as infamous; so here we have an entry that won't meet BLP guidelines. The problem here is Wikipeida and it is a major credibility problem.Kitatom (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His failures have been expressed. There's nothing stopping you improve the article, as long as you keep to a neutral point of view. -- Kethrus |talk to me 21:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passport scam fraud has not been expressed; and that is his current "vocation. Essentially Wikipeida is supporting fraud through ommission" Kitatom (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source for that (NOT VIMEO OR USER SUBMITTED SITES) feel free to add it (see WP:IRS). To me it's evident you have a bias against him, though - so I recommend you request an edit (see Wikipedia:Edit requests). We're not stopping anything coming onto the site if it can be proved it's factual, for anything, good or bad, Vimeo is not accepted. -- Kethrus |talk to me 21:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitatom (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I sent a demand letter to the legal department of the Wikipedia Foundation; clearly the process here is not working. Kitatom (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do. This isn't a legal matter at all. Also see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. -- Kethrus |talk to me 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: we just went through this, subject clearly passes WP:GNG. SPA accounts have an ax to grind with this individual, Wikipedia is not the place for that. Vrac (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: A sockpuppet investigation has been opened on Kitatom, who is believed to be the same editor as Grockeds (talk · contribs) and Ebcidic (talk · contribs). Investigation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockeds. —Farix (t | c) 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE All of Kitatom's comments have been striked out, as they have been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. -- Kethrus |talk to me 22:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Evidence: [10] --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a re-post of a blog post.[11] Also, based on Nestmann's own about page as well as the about page of LewRockwell.com, WP:FRINGE very much applies. —Farix (t | c) 10:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "I don't like it" is not a legitimate reason for deletion, if anything (you know, if the sources were reliable) the information would be added to the article, and wouldn't be grounds for deletion. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at some of ElNuevoEinstein other edits is a bit alarming. Here, he removes two paragraphs of content claiming that the source is a "notorious liar" and a "self-confessed child-rapist". In another AfD started by Kethrus, he flat out removes the deletion rational without giving an explanation.[12] —Farix (t | c) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - TheFarix: Concerning the self-confessed child rapist: The Center for a Stateless Society, a think-tank which Spangler himself co-founded, has publicly addressed the issue and publicly disassociated from him: [13]. He publicly confessed to it on his own facebook wall. He later removed that post from his facebook wall, but a screenshot of it is still available. [[14]]. (I know, one can forge any screencap picture of a facebook post, and it does not serve as proof therefore, but it is understandable.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElNuevoEinstein (talk • contribs)
      - Someone doing something that is generally considered wrong by most peoples standards is still no reason for content regarding them to be removed from Wikipedia. I really think WP:SNOW applies on this discussion, especially as the only other supporter of a deletion is a confirmed sockpuppet (including the last deletion discussion). I'll not count the one in 2005 as it was a long time ago, and a lot has changed, and there now is a claim to significance. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:29, 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 Withdrawn and kept as the current version also seems acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Cruickshank[edit]

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

Though I'm sure created in GF, this article on a woman who has just launched a multi-level marketing scheme involving make-up does not have the kind-of broad, reliable sourcing necessary to pass BLP, even though at first glace there are a plethora of citations. There are 13 references, grouped roughly as follows: (a) press releases and company websites - 3, (b) non-RS sources like step-up-club.net, wearethecity.com, etc. - 5, (c) very short blurbs announcing promotions or movements in RS - 1, (d) advertorial [article on The Independent is in their "Business Analysis & Features" and on Telegraph in their "Biz Idol" - both paid advertorial sections] - 2, (e) legit profile coverage on The Drum and the small trade rag "Management Today" - 2.
Her award as an "Inspiring Fifty" woman is from a non-notable awards scheme that appears to be 1 or 2 years old, has no physical address, and no associated persons (like a board of advisers, etc.) who are themselves notable. LavaBaron (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made an analysis of the references of the article at this permalink. I am judging Pass/Fail on whether the references verify notability, not on whether they may be used in the article

http://www.inspiringfifty.com/50-inspiring-women-list-2015-eu/ passing mention. Is this WP:RS? My view is Fail
https://www.myshowcase.com/stylist/nancy_cruickshank WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUB and thus of no use in establishing notability. Fail
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/no-handbag-just-the-height-of-web-fashion-860768.html Clear pass
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/9745764/How-beauty-site-MyShowcase-creates-entrepreneurs.html Clear pass
http://step-up-club.net/2015/07/15/power-chat-nancy-cruickshank/ Not RS, Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
http://www.wearethecity.com/inspirational-women-nancy-cruickshank-founder-myshowcase/ Not RS, Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/13/nancy-cruickshank-telegraph-media-group Clear pass
http://www.onmobile.com/OnMobile%20expands%20Board%20appoints%20Nancy%20Cruickshank%20and%20Bruno%20Ducharme%20as%20Directors PR piece. Fail
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/11/nancy-cruickshank-businesswoman-profile_n_4084269.html Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1348301/meet-entrepreneur-helping-hundreds-women-start-own-businesses/ Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
http://erisea-mag.com/behind-the-brand-nancy-cruickshank Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
http://www.telecitygroup.com/investor-centre/nancy-cruickshank.htm WP:SELFPUB Fail
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/02/15/it-s-massively-fragmented-market-and-still-evolving-fast-nancy-cruickshank-talks interview with editorial. Borderline

I feel that there are sufficient references that pass our criteria. I use the following to judge them: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

I think the article relies far too heavily on references which do not verify notability, but that is a reason to edit it or to find better references. We have sufficient references that meet our policies to retain the article. Fiddle Faddle 11:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent and helpful run-down. (I would only disagree on the Independent and Telegraph, since the articles in question are advertorials.) LavaBaron (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we stand, each of us, close to the border, but on different sides of it, over this article. Luckily, neither of us has to make the final call. The two references you criticise but that I do not are best left, I think, to other people's judgement. Fiddle Faddle 11:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Implication that she is an inexperienced entrepreneur is unfounded. WP:BEFORE would have shown RS showing that she has history going back long before current start up, thus notability has not been fleeting. Appreciate the analysis by Timtrent and also find [15], [16], [17] showing web coverage going back to 2006. Article could definitely use editing, but notability does not rely on a well-written article nor sources being cited. The guidelines say that sources must exist. Sufficient evidence has been provided to show that RS do exist to confirm her notability. SusunW (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument has swayed me, SusunW. I may have been narrowing-in on the writing problems with this article you pointed out to the exclusion of sources. I withdraw my "Delete" and am happy to see this AfD closed. LavaBaron (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, SusunW, for pointing-out the writing issues here. I've proposed some basic edits on the article's Talk page I think will eliminate the issues and prevent someone else from erroneously AfD'ing this in the future. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aitor Cantalapiedra[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After improvements, it may pass WP:GNG. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically fails NFOOTBALL but probably passes GNG. Playing for the first team of a team like Barcelona in a competitive match, regardless of how lowly the opposition are, is a big deal. Giant Snowman 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Aitor is getting a lot of press in Spain. Axlferrari (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG adding to the possibility of WP:NFOOTY. Spanish sports websites have written on Aitor, and he made his debut in a competitive game for one of the planet's elite clubs, even if the opponent was semi-pro '''tAD''' (talk) 14:49, 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 speedy delete. one sentence in Dutch, no evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rianne Kloppers[edit]

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

Not in English, and possible autobiography ... very short new article, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:33, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey James (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography for a non-notable author of, at lest, just one notable book. At best, his name should redirect to his solely notable (self-published?) book. We don't have enough third part coverage to base a biography article about this man. damiens.rf 09:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. Pinging the only still active past users Meatsgains and Jujutacular. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some sources([18][19][20]), if The Tao of Programming is notable then probably enough for an article. I don't think the book was self-published - InfoBooks was publishing books by other authors two years before "The Tao of Programming". Peter James (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that there is a page for the Tao, but it is unsourced. It would be great to find the prizes mentioned here, or the ones mentioned on his Amazon page. However, I didn't find them. I looked on the web pages of the societies that supposedly gave him an award, and none is listed. With those, I would consider a keep. However, business books are kind of like self-help books -- there are many hundreds of them and they don't seem to endure well. That is a mark against notability, in my mind. LaMona (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing enough coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tao of Programming - an unquestionably influential book, on par with Jargon File, just as unuqetionably it is a one-hit-wonder, and therefore WP:SINGLE guideline is applicable unless proven otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Sport[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Ahunt (creator) with the following rationale "It has reliable third party sources that establish notability, please read the ref list fr more details". Well, the ref consists of a single entry: " Bertrand, Noel; Rene Coulon; et al: World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04, page 66. Pagefast Ltd, Lancaster UK, 2003. ISSN 1368-485X". AGF the company is mentioned there, nonetheless without a quote we can't know if this is in-depth coverage, or a mention in passing. Either way, the source is not very reliable: [21] describes it as " the most complete buyers guide for sport flying equipment available." - in other words, a sales catalogue. I don't see how this is sufficient, given I can't find any other sources (I tried GNews, and GBooks, and see nothing else). A company whose only listing is a (presumed) profile in a sales catalogue does not seem worthy of being in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear precedent is any aircraft manufacturer is notable for inclusion, it could do with more reference but that shouldnt be a reason for deletion, I also dont see anything wrong with the World Directory of Leisure Aviation as a source it certainly is not a "sale catalogue" but a directory as it says on the tin. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reference entry is extensive enough to produce the article as it currently reads and so the subject meets WP:GNG and should be retained. The cited ref is not just a "phone book" directory, but extensive descriptions of aircraft and manufacturers as can be seen by the information cited in the article. Also a previous AfD established that the World Directory of Leisure Aviation is a suitable independent third-party reference. As an aircraft manufacturer the company is notable and I will research and add further paper references, such as Jane's All The Worlds Aircraft. It would have been more courteous to discuss on the talk page first, rather than going directly to a PROD and AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ahunt. Also a frivolous/premature AFD. Oh for the good old days on Wikipedia when PRODs/AFDs were a last resort, not the first, and noms actually discussed deletions on article talk page before taking the drastic final step of AFD. - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Ahunt, including the comment on courtesy. Just because an editor has only cited one source so far does not mean that no other sources exist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Ahunt and Steelpillow. TSRL (talk) 15:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Airways Flight 405[edit]

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

Non-notable incident Petebutt(talk) 07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my nomination, the extent of this incidents notability is covered by this Dynamic Airways#Incidents. There is no need for an article on a non-encyclopaedic event.--Petebutt (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 08:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to raise to requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (events). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable and not that unusual, wikipedia is not a newspaper. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article should be re-written and expanded instead due to this being a current event. CNN and others have covered a lot about this. Wikipedia:Notability (events). --_{User:Ruler1091| reply here} 10:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with user Ruler1091. It was a serious accident with numerous injuries. Deaths and total hull loss are not the only things that make an airliner accident notable. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, MilborneOne, it IS quite unusual for the passengers to all slide down the chutes while an airliner engine and wing are engulfed in flame while tens of gallons of fuel leak out. Marginal notability at this point; notability might or might not become clearer when investigations are complete. I do not see an established guideline for notability airliner accidents. There was serious damage to the 29 year old aircraft, though no statement has been made that the airframe is beyond repair. One serious injury and numerous hospitalizations. In a Reuters story a former NTSB investigator said the NTSB "will try to determine the source of the fire and why it caused so much damage, and could recommend modifications to the 767 fleet and general airline procedures to prevent a recurrence," so there is at least the potential for the incident to have significant effects. It is certainly not a catastrophic airliner crash, but is more significant than lots of inflight incidents which get some press coverage but the articles about which get deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. We can revisit in a year or two and see if the incident satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE and gets more than the primary sourcing to news coverage it has now. Edison (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above SOXROX (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned above, there was substantial fire damage, injuries and a full investigation. Not the most severe accident but British Airways Flight 2276 was never considered for deletion A340swazzen (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantial damage, possible writeoff, old plane...all make this notable, even if this does involve a past-generation P&W engine (here, a JT9D); there are still JT9D-powered 767s flying. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dynamic Airways as should most crash articles.Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Keep change in opinion. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. It may be a year or more before the various investigation are completed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the comment by Edison, who explains the issue well. The event is unusual because of the number of passengers who safely evacuated an aircraft that was on fire. At the same time, it is also too soon to determine the impact of this event. Per WP:RAPID, it's too soon to determine the lasting significance of the event; it should be revisited in a few months to allow its significance to be better realized. AHeneen (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be revisited in a year or two if continued notability is not found, but for right now I think it meets the guidelines. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just in case it leads to some notable reform in the FAA or something, which I highly doubt it will, but still, just in case. Antonio Michael Jason 'Hellraiser' Kruger Martin (aqui) 00;42, 1 November, 2015 (UTC)
Strong keep. At a minimum, this is an engine-loss incident or engine-loss incident and wing-loss incident. This could be even a constructive hull-loss incident, but that is yet to be determined --2601:646:4201:26C0:6D40:9F4E:3856:24EB (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too soon to address non-notability. We can wait.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A disconnected fuel coupling does not an ecncyclop[aedia entry make!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The airframe was damaged quite considerably and it is a very old airframe. At the very least we can wait for a bit to address notability, since this accident resulted in a rather large inconvenience for both the airline and the airport, not to mention there being one serious injury. Yny501 (talk) 03:53, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia (band)[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 11:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can actually be improved as I'm not seeing much here but there are some links at the Ukraine Wiki but in any case this may not be acceptable at this time. Pinging Wikimandia for comment. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:03, 15 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! 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added the name in Ukrainian. Obviously article needs copyediting badly. I didn't dig too deeply but it seems to me they meet the requirements for being nationally notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Michig and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the Russian version of the article. Most of the sources are social media or YouTube links: primary sources. The ones that I clicked on that did not fall into one of those categories were blocked or dead. Unless I see some sources that support notability, whether in English, Ukrainian or Russian, I can't support their notability. The English term is to vague for good searches. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Until 2012, the group was called Кожному своє [To each his own]. Searching in English resulted in nothing but band-written festival blurbs, routine promotional announcements, and user-generated content. Searching in Ukrainian was more productive. What do you think of [22] and [23]? Worldbruce (talk) 01:55, 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Market America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deleted in 2007 but it was restarted and frankly this has not improved since with my searches also finding nothing better than this, this, this and this. Pinging past AfD commenter Ohconfucius. Pinging Mike V, MaynardClark, LuckyLouie, DGG, Phearson, Armbrust, Hoary and Leef5 and I would've also notified the author Mjchipl but it seems unlikely they'll come again. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have run a google search on the topic and the company's website comes up, yes, but there are also some business reviews for the site that I have found and it appears to use several inline citations that link to new stories about the company, as well as a listing in global 100 lists. Tjhe article is afull of issues and is written like an advertisment, although this is not a reason to delete it. I must admit that I don't fully understand your argument above, although the best I can tell is that you are faulting it through the Notability guideline, which I think that it meets. RailwayScientist (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Promotional, but fixable. I've just now fixed the worst of it. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but surely we have real reasons for wanting to know as much as possible from Wikipedia about highly-"impactful" "network marketing" organizations like this. Wikipedia provides a real service by organizing the information into useful, carefully-reasoned bunches so that inquirers - honest inquirers - don't need to rely merely upon 100% promotional expressions about MA. MaynardClark (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Of COURSE we keep because of the size and consequence of the topic. MaynardClark (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Market America's American Dream Machine". Bloomberg Business. (Feature article, 5 pages)
^ Brie W. "LaLa Anthony, "Fat Joe" Cartegena, Loren Ridinger and More at Market America Conference in Greensboro". carolinastylemag.com.
^ "Direct Sales Company Allows Miami-Area Founders to Enjoy Extravagant Lifestyle". highbeam.com.(subscription required)
^ Robin Wauters. "Market America Acquires Bill Gates-Backed Shopping Site Shop.com". TechCrunch.
^ Market America plans to expand into Philippines. Triad Business Jouranl. (subscription required)
^ "Market America brings more than 20,000 to Greensboro". Triad Business Jouranl.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chutzpa Productions[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable company article as I simply found nothing better than the usual expected links here and this simply has not noticeably improved since starting in June 2009. Pinging Jayron32, DGG and Laval and there were a few other pingable users such as Qwyrxian and Astronaut. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The company's corporate website - which is not listed on the article - does have a webpage devoted to press coverage. I'll take a look, when I get a chance, and encourages others to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you Google founder "Igal Hecht" + Chutzpa (or Chutzpah, the more common spelling even though it's not the official name) one does find OK coverage on the ~~company~~ company's founder and principal, Hecht, which has produced some clearly notable works. This article in Critics at large, a blog published by professional some writers, this piece in Jewish news site Shalom Life, this piece in Christian Week, etc. And then, with the mispelled company name Chutzpah (the more common spelling as a common noun), there's this lengthy interview in Canadian Jewish News, here. Its films have also screened at notable fests, as well, such as Hot Docs, NXNE, etc. I wonder if the solution isn't to repurpose as a bio article on Igal Hecht. Anyway, while the nominator raises some very valid concerns, I can find enough coverage that I think it meets WP:ORG, in the sense that Hecht is Chuzpa, so Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , but consider reorienting the article to be on the person instead, if all of this is his personal work. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I work quite a bit on the doc side, and if it's kept I'd be happy to move the page to Igal Hecht, do some editing to refocus and add a few references. I can't say I'm terribly motivated to work on the Hecht bio article nor am I that into his body of work, but I would not leave it as is, I promise. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The breadth and scope of the documentary work is a strong claim of notability and the sources and material here and available elsewhere justifies retention under the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Downs[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable because my searches found nothing convincingly better at all and this article would certainly need and changing improvement if kept. A look through this history will show no significant improvement ever happening and it seems a fan or someone must've been editing the article (including adding euphemisms from "passed away" to "died") yet this article has stayed the same since starting in March 2009. Pinging Boleyn, TenPoundHammer and Ariconte (me supongo que hablas Español?). SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article claims notability with a charted single, but this is not backed up by the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs book, which does not list a "Greatest Cowboy of All" charting for any artist. Discogs does list some work by him, but I could find no substantial information on him, nor any other proof that he even exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TenPoundHammer. No evidence of notability on the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travelive[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable and unimprovable article as my searches found nothing than the usual expected links and nothing convincingly better. Notifying AfC accepter Hallows AG and I would've also notified Chzz but they're not noticeably active. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Liz and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems primarily promotional in nature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly promotional, almost to the point of G11, and not notable either. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 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. North America's point is worth keeping in mind though, SwisterTwister. Jenks24 (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megatrax Production Music[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable article as the best I found was this, this, this and this and I simply see no convincingly better improvement. Pinging interested users Wilhelmina Will, Michig, Walter Görlitz and Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, but I don't know why I was summoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert for unnotable company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the nominator – please provide some rationale why you pinged users you selected to this discussion. What is your criteria here for "interested users" relative to the topic? It's important to keep guidelines about canvassing in mind when contributing to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados-Philippines relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This whole article hinges a one off meeting in New York between representatives of both countries. In fact a large part of the article is a copyright violation from http://www.foreign.gov.bb/Userfiles/File/PHILIPPINES.pdf . There is no evidence of agreements, significant trade or migration or high level visits. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 08:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 08:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the whole thing is a copyvio. Tagged {{db-copyvio}} Jbh ^Talk 21:16, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Johnson Harris[edit]

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

She is a regional representative to a state school board . Such positions do not lead to the assumption of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Simply nothing to suggest better here with a local school board member. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. A few related articles also should be considered alongside this one:

Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Represents eleven parishes on state Board of Education. Qualifies as regional political office. Same with above members who represent multiple parishes as well. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low-level politician (on state school board) is not sufficient for automatic notability (which I don't believe in anyway). Either way there are no sources that assert this subject's remarkability, as also reflected in its lack of sources. czar 14:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story is in progress for the November 21 election Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC) and has been refurbished. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the other four listed by Ilikeeatingwaffles. No in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability by our standards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coverage now includes four newspapers, a magazine, a radio station, and two television stations thus far. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy: I have evaluated each source currently cited in the article. Ignoring the Secretary of State, facebook and other sources that could not demonstrate notability in any case (and skipping the Google Drive source since Drive crashes my browser), here's what I found for the media sources:

Shreveport Times obituary — Clearly submitted to the paper by someone with COI and run in exchange for payment; ignored.
Interview in City Life — Interviews don't demonstrate notability.
Times-Picayune article — Substantial coverage.
Monroe News-Star article – Mere mention.
KTBS-TV article — Mere mention.
Bossier Press-Tribune article — Mere mention.
2nd KTBS-TV article — Mere mention.
KEEL-AM listing — A listing, not an article.
ksl.com article — More than a mere mention, but not quite substantial.
KSLA-TV article — Also falls short of substantial.
Shreveport Times article — Another that's more than a mere mention, yet somewhat less than substantial.

Tallying up the sources, I'm inclined toward keeping the article, even though it's an edge case for notability. A fair amount of work has gone into the article, and given the contentiousness of the fight over Common Core in Louisiana it seems likely there will be future substantial coverage of Harris in that regard. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If the article is not kept in mainspace, I advocate for it to be userfied rather than simply deleted, and am willing to take it on in my own user space if article creator Billy Hathorn doesn't want to. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local coverage of a school board member is not acceptable for inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder, this is not a local-level school board but the school board at the state level; members are responsible for policy decisions that affect the entire state, and each represent a region within the state, not merely a local municipality. Did you perhaps misunderstand what Harris's position actually is? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not believe Johnson Harris is notable on the scale necessary for a global encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With so much coverage from multiple sources, this article could also qualify as local politician under the notability guideline though she is a regional figure. There is a place on Wikiepdia for "local politicians": it says so specifically in the rules. I have seen many British and Australian "local politicians" on the board too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC) 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. is the specific line in the rules. Billy Hathorn (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this here? I'm of the opinion that before an article even gets to AfD some ought to check them first. If GrammarFascist can find that much info and as Billy Hathorn stated, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", it shouldn't be here... or is this just another case of no one willing to take the time to do a rewrite?! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GrammarFascist and especially based on the two substantial articles that go in depth about her. DGG, her position seems to be more akin to the New York Board of Regents. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so. I'm withdrawing the AfD, but someone else will have to close it, as there are other deletes than my own. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Har Lamha[edit]

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

The song fails WP:NSONG. All the content from background and release section is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS sections but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:32, 16 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! 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has already proven that the song fails WP:NSONG. As per the policy the content should be moved to Khamoshiyan#Soundtrack. Bharatiya29 (talk) 08:20, 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 delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BAJ0TZ[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Zpeopleheart (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 08:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 08:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Honestly the band meets CSD A7 and there is no sourcing and they aren't on a major label. In addition the band has been active since 2017. Unless we have a time machine, they haven't formed yet. To note multiple IPs have been vandalizing the page, and removed the AfD template. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:14, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardo's Function Facility[edit]

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

Questionably notable as it certainly seems well known locally with my searches here, here, here, here and here but I'm not entirely sure this can be better notable and improved. Pinging the only still active user Nihonjoe (who removed the speedy A7). SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow. Pretty damn obnoxious to have A7-tagged it within a MINUTE after the article was created, but that was six years ago, so. In any event, as a South Shore native, I know of Lombardo's/Chateau de Ville quite well -- the site's been beloved of area high school proms and weddings for over a generation. But that doesn't qualify this for a Wikipedia article. Certainly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and while there are no doubt a blizzard of possible cites to the local papers, I expect the vast majority will be picture galleries of the Silver Lake High School Class of 1997 Senior Prom and suchlike. Beyond that, the article's a bit of a coatrack for the family and its owner, and ALL of it's a word-for-word copyvio from the function hall's website, most of which I've just removed. Ravenswing 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep: In its current state, it reads like a press release or marketing piece, so it definitely needs some work to bring it up to acceptable standards. The references used (the Boston Globe and the Post-Gazetteer) establish enough notability to barely scrape by general notability. Since it's been there since the early 1960s, there are likely other articles which would cement its notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expect you didn't examine those references. The Boston Post-Gazette is a small Italian community weekly that's just a cut above a free supermarket weekly, and that reference is a plain press release. In any event, WP:AUD holds that "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability." Beyond that, of course it's not enough to suggest that other articles cementing a subject's notability might exist. The GNG requires that they be produced, in order to save an article. Ravenswing 01:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You expect wrong. I know exactly what it is, and the other reference is to the Boston Globe, which meets the rest of WP:AUD that you didn't bother quoting: "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Boston Globe meets that in spades. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or might ... but that'd be part of that examining thing. That's listed in the "local" section on the website, which at best is published in the Globe's appropriate local section (either Metrowest or "Boston South," I expect), with limited local circulation, and certainly not part of regional or statewide coverage, even if you ignore Hiro's objections below. Ravenswing 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've spent some time updating with even more sources and expanded the article some based on some of the information in those sources. I still think it meets WP:ORG, even if just barely. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Ravenswing: Have you looked at it since I added a bunch more refs and information? I also rewrote some of it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The only notable source, the Boston Globe article, does not address the subject (the facility) directly and in detail, just one aspect of it (its chandelier) and therefore does not count as significant coverage. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hirolovesswords: I added quite a few new references since your opinion was expressed. What is your opinion on the new refs? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 04:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. The refs are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The refs are not "mere notices" (whatever that means). There are multiple big articles in multiple reliable news sources in those refs I added. These are not just passing mentions anymore. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 Being from the East Coast, would you like to comment? SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't inviting a specific user to participate be canvassing? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But also inviting users interested with that topic, in this case an East Coast place, would hopefully gain a better consensus here. Other East Coast users I can think of that may be interested with this are Bearian, [email protected], Liz and Newyorkbrad. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inviting several is good, especially since I know from experience some of them are impartial (not saying the others aren't just that I have no experience with them). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the ping, and I personally don't have a problem with being asked to join a discussion where it's believed I might have some background. However, in this case I am afraid I don't have anything special to offer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure what particular expertise being on the "East Coast" would lend to the conversation -- quite aside from that there are probably only a hundred thousand function halls within a day's drive -- since what we're discussing is whether this subject meets the requirements for an article. Someone from Kazakhstan or Lesotho can do that as well as anyone. As I mentioned above, I know of the facility, but I was born two towns away. I guarantee that there are millions of Massachusetts residents (never mind East Coasters generally) who've never heard of it, to the meager degree that matters for this discussion. Ravenswing 06:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't checked all of the references (but I did check a few) but here in suburban New Jersey, every town has a meeting and event facility for proms, weddings and meetings, many of them family-owned. Lombardi's would have to be exceptional to warrant an article on Wikipedia otherwise we just become a business directory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: dubious references, likely COI (article created by someone using the username Lombardoff), and, IMO, still reads like advert after almost 7 years. @Ravenswing nailed it. Quis separabit? 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the ping, but I'm not familiar with this hall. My older sister and her hubby got married at a different place in the Boston area, but this hall was not on their radar. It doesn't look good anyway. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems just short of being notable. The awards don't seem to be particularly reputable, though I wouldn't know for certain. The sources are local/regional sources. The building the company uses isn't a registered historic building. The company has been around for awhile, but it doesn't seem to standout in its field. Edit Ferret (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I can see where this is going. I find it sad that we have articles on fictional characters that almost entirely reference the DVD collections of the show, and yet people want to delete a small, but well-referenced article on a local landmark. Oh well. I'm no longer watching this discussion, so I won't be replying to any other comments here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If you think that article doesn't meet the standards, what prevents you from nominating it? In any event, the consensus is plainly that the referencing does not meet notability standards. Ravenswing 06:11, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Mohan P[edit]

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

Only links are to IMDB. I searched and came up with nothing notable. Seems like this fails WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this one seems obvious. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weak sources, not notable. r a y u k k. 21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Ram Mohan P" "Ram Mohan Paruvu" "Sunshine Cinemas" "Ashta Chamma" "Golconda High School" "Uyyala Jampala"

Keep per meeting easily meeting WP:GNG and more importantly meeting WP:FILMMAKER, prong 4 (c) in that his works have won significant critical attention. The current article is poorly written yes, but being WP:UGLY is not a reason to delete a notable topic that can be improved with just a little attention. I politely remind that per guideline WP:N, if someone's diligence finds available sources, topic notability is established, even if the sources have not (yet) been used or the topic improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:29, 15 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! 01:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to mikeman67, SwisterTwister and Rayukk: A little due diligence and some work in expansion and sourcing show (IMHO) the man's works to have received enough "significant critical attention" so as to have him meet WP:FILMMMAKER, prong 4, (c). The current version is no longer the unsourced stub first brought to AFD, and I feel it best serves Wikipedia to have this remain and grow over time and through more editorial attention. As this is no longer the article upon which you first opined, I invite you to reconsider. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to be so condescending? I appreciate your work on expanding the article. But right now, by my count, only two of the eight sources on the page even mention him at all, and the ones that do are both very trivial mentions. Also, the section "Recognition" are reviews of movies, and make no mention of Mohan, which seems like an attempt to WP:BOMBARD the page. There's nothing in those sources to suggest that it's Mohan who deserves credit for those movies' praise, or whether he was involved in the filmmaking process at all. Generally film producers' roles vary widely, and it's possible his role was very minor. Without reliable sources that discuss his role, it's impossible to know. I find it telling that he isn't mentioned in those articles. I've done a number of searches now for his name, and from what I have seen, there are almost no reliable sources that discuss him at all, and do not see how a page could be created with such limited verifiable information. I do not think he meets WP:BASIC, WP:FILMMAKER (I'll point out here that this criteria applies to creative professionals only) or WP:GNG at the moment, but of course would reconsider if more sources are presented. mikeman67 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel my being careful and polite in explaining my guideline-supported thoughts for others who may not have made 1100 edits in nine years is "condescending", then sorry. Courtesy is per policy, and clarity prevents misunderstandings. While it would be fine if the man had headlines around the world, a guideline notability found through his works receiving significant coverage does not also or somehow require that he himself have such coverage, else all SNGs would be deleted and we'd rely instead on the GNG and the GNG alone. And pardon, but unless you wish to somehow refute the many reliable sources speaking toward and praising Uyyala Jampala, a film he both wrote and produced, it seems his "creative" endeavors ARE being recognized. While you may tacitly imply or personally feel Sify or The Hindu or The Deccan Chronicle or International Business Times somehow do not meet the criteria for reliable sources, I cannot change my own belief that they do unless WP:RSN agrees with your evaluation. And on a lighter note, when you request the removal of THIS notability clarification, or nominate the SNGs for deletion, please ping me so that I might respond in those discussions. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider MQS as the WP authority in this field, and since he thinks the refs are sufficient, the article should be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a type of WP:ADHOM argument. No doubt he's a very experienced editor with lots of great contributions, but nobody gets a supervote. I don't agree his sources indicate substantial coverage of Ram Mohan P himself. They show light coverage of movies in which his role isn't entirely clear. Totally fair if you disagree with me, but perhaps you can take a closer look yourself before voting. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could of course have paraphrased his arguments. But I give him credit for finding and evaluating the sources. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users AKS.9955, Yash!, Human3015 and SpacemanSpiff. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 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 Speedied so considering this is no longer part of the article mainspace, there's no point with continuing this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and Aviation Safety[edit]

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

a brief thesis, not an encyc. article Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Mercurywoodrose: as of now it redirects to user page. You may nominate it for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. But I don't know this user exists or not. --Human3015^TALK 04:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User doesn't exist. Wlin72 has being using the spot as their personal playground. I've moved the article to User:Wlin72/Culture and Aviation Safety. I also deleted the redirect from the article to user space. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 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. Sandstein 06:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cities, Towns and Villages in Ark-La-Tex[edit]

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

Seems to be a copy of information already in the Ark-La-Tex article. — foxj 03:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no convincingly better signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary content fork of Ark-La-Tex, where all sourced content is already included. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:14, 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 speedy keep. per SK1 - Nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. In addition to this article being unreferenced, there is no significant coverage from any reliable secondary sources for any of the episodes. WP:NOTPLOT also applies as there is nothing but plot summaries within the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the nominator brings up a good point in regards to WP:NOTPLOT, there are, in fact, some good sources to be found. [24] and [25] are a couple fairly good examples but there's even coverage from the Washington Post [26]. I won't argue that the article isn't a mess but it's definitely worthy of inclusion and can be improved. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ditto with above: People, TV Guide. 23W 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redid the plot sections altogether and added secondary coverage. 23W 02:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I was surprised when my pre-AFD searches didn't turn up any decent refs except for TV Guide pages, which only gave brief plot descriptions. Speaking of which, the plot sections definitely look better now without the excess detail. Thank you both for providing links as well as cleaning up the article. I now withdraw this AFD as the article is now decently referenced and doesn't solely consist of bloated plots. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo, what else is there to do on a Friday. I remember watching the first two films on TV and thinking they went on forever, but nothing to spill 1879 words over. 23W 06:04, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Smith Rower[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Borderline A7. sst✈^discuss 02:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search didn't produce anything. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. If enough references can be found to prove notability and it's kept then it needs to be moved to Miles Smith (Rower). Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Clear coi too. Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bigmacpattie, are you a WP:SOCKPUPPET of the creator, Milessmith4life? Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I just put a "notability" tag on this, then checked the history and saw that the creator and its ilk have persistently removed similar tags. Oy vey. Pegship (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milessmith4life keeps removing the AfD template, blanking the page, and/or creating nonsense. I hope this goes away soon. Pegship (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 redirect to List of Misfits band members. Redirect target can be changed and content can be merged as editors see fit. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Damage[edit]

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

Not notable drummer, does not pass WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Misfits or simply delete as unless better can be found, it's unlikely this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough coverage of this person to meet WP:GNG. At the very worst, this could be redirected to List of Misfits band members. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage does not appear to be in-depth, rather simply listing him as a member of the The Misfits. There is some in-depth coverage, but this appears to be for another performer of the same name, a comedian. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to The Misfits - should be merged into The Misfits unless he is notable for some other event, since the group is notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Michig, Guerillero, Derek R Bullamore, Walter Görlitz and Yash!. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The third reference is a 404. The AOL ref won't let me view it either because I'm Canadian or because I have an ad blocker (or possibly both) and the first reference is not only weak, it only supports the notability of one member. The search term is so vague that it did not return a useful Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brain damage (disambiguation) - and mention the drummer on that page. "Brain Damage" is a searchable term and people might search with the "D" in capital letters. They would just get confused if the term redirects them to Misfits' article. Also, we have to add a hat-note on the Misfits' page about the disambiguation page. It is better to mention the drummer on the disambiguation page rather than having a hat-note about "Brain damage (disambiguation)" on the Misfits' page. Ya sh ! 04:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2020[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)

Five years ahead of this election anything in here is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Article was created way too soon. Stabila711 (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:CRYSTAL covers "unverifiable speculation." The 2020 U.S. presidential election could be canceled or the Earth could be destroyed, but it does not rise to the level of "unverifiable speculation." Significant RS are currently covering this planned event. We consistently have election articles on future, planned electoral contests, such as United States Senate elections, 2020 or 2020 United Kingdom parliamentary election or Russian presidential election, 2018 etc. etc. LavaBaron (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding United States Senate elections, 2020 as CRYSTAL as well. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is a terrible argument. Having the next election is fine having anything past that is WP:TOOSOON --Stabila711 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also need to AfD the following, then: 2020 United Kingdom parliamentary election, and Russian presidential election, 2018, and French presidential election, 2017, and United Nations Security Council election, 2020, and at least 19 more future-date contests in major OECD nations I've counted. LavaBaron (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. The U.K., Russian, and French election is the next election for those countries. The U.S. 2016 election has not happened yet so the page for the 2020 election is too soon. The UN elections are more plausible. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more plausible the UN Security Council will hold an election in 2020 than the United States will hold an election in 2020? Are you serious, bro? This isn't a placeholder page like a page for the 2050 elections might be - this is a page curating significant RS commentary and reporting currently happening. LavaBaron (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. The UN elections are more plausible for a deletion discussion than the other elections you listed. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand you. It's clear you're all over the place. You didn't even code your WP:POINTY AfD for U.S. Senate Elections, 2020 correctly. LavaBaron (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron, please try to be CIVIL when discussing this topic. Stabila711 made a mistake when they added the Senate AFD tags - have you never made one yourself? Primefac (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being honest, not when I'm going through mass AfDing other people's work, no, I haven't made a mistake. I try to make a point to proceed slowly, carefully, and with respectable caution instead of just firing-up the bulldozer and flooring the gas pedal. LavaBaron (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that it was you that caused the AFD template on Senate to point to the wrong page. So where exactly did Stabila go wrong? Multi-page AFDs are perfectly acceptable. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your noticing skills are lacking, I'm afraid. Look again - [27]. There's a process for multi-page AfDs and it's not being followed. See: WP:MULTIAFD. It exists for a reason, specifically, to avoid the massive confusion that is being created by the current, incorrect coding. LavaBaron (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2020 Senate election article consists of speculation from reliable sources, so it does not fail the crystal ball requirements. It is also not "too soon" for this article because 2020 is the next election for class 2 Senators; in other words, it is the next election for these particular seats. This is what separates it from, say, an article on the 2020 presidential election or an article on the 2018 house elections. If nothing else, the article is useful for showing what seats are up for election in 2020 and who currently holds those seats. Orser67 (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, I think there are two reasons WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL do not apply. (1) People are already making concrete plans to organize campaigns (Kanye West registered a Super PAC), and (2) the U.S. Constitution specifies that a presidential election must be held in 2020. Both of those facts have been discussed by reliable sources. You can always call any future event speculative, because we simply don't know if World War III will break out tomorrow and wipe out every human on Earth. However, Wikipedia does allow for articles about future events when there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources (see WP:GNG). This article satisfies that threshold. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The election has already received significant media coverage (even though it is five years from now), and several people have already expressed interest in running for president, or have considerable speculation about a possible presidential run: as mentioned above, Kanye West, as well as Senators Tom Cotton and Cory Booker. It seems not to fall under WP:TOOSOON. MB298 (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic has received enough significant coverage to merit an article --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL (point 1). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should probably just WP:SNOW this one closed. LavaBaron (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taiwanese general election, 2020 was recently deleted based on WP:CRYSTAL. If these articles are kept, then restoring the Taiwanese one should be considered (concerns re systematic bias here). Number 5 7 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provided it had broad RS discussing it, as with this one, I have no problem with that. LavaBaron (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/WP:SNOW keep. Clear misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTAL. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not too soon to put it as at least a short article. The election before it, the 2016 race, is underway now, so it's just the next one. —GoldRingChip 11:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, the article is far too early to have the welter of content that it does, a lot of which is speculative, even if referenced. I feel more stringent editing criteria are required this many years in advance of the inevitable event and would like to see it reduced substantially in content. Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. However, I also agree with the above comment by Fiddle Faddle regarding the content and editing of the article.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Brands Holdings Corporation[edit]

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

At first, this corporation would seem notable especially considering they have several brands but my searches simply found nothing better than this and this. This has existed since September 2006 with not much change and the only active user to ping seems to be Northamerica1000. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. by common sense. A $1 billion company is notable. Sources may be difficult in this area, but this is a problem with our resources, not the subject. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 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! 16:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may have to look for food industry specific publications like [28] for some additional information. Companies like these that don't have a strong consumer-facing product line generally get ignored by the mainstream press. shoy (reactions) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable. needs more refined sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baatein Ye Kabhi Na[edit]

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

The song fails WP:NSONG. All the content from background and release section is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS sections but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 16 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! 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has already proven that the song fails WP:NSONG. As per the policy the content should be moved to Khamoshiyan#Soundtrack. Bharatiya29 (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose as there's nothing else here. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 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. consensus is now clear DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trekforce Expeditions[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. looks like an advert. a mere 2 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as although I'm very fond of conservation and nature, my searches simply found nothing better (with "Trekforce Expeditions United Kingdom") aside from some links at News, Books and browser. This simply hasn't changed much since June 2007 and it's unlikely it's going to happen anytime soon. BTW LibStar were you watching this since January 2014 or had you randomly encountered it again? Pinging Stepheng3. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swister, I had watched it for a while. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 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! 02:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Velella, Jusdafax, Northamerica1000 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't imagine why I have been pinged, as I have never edited the article or the Talk page. That said, it's in very bad shape and needs neutral sources and a rewrite. Jus da fax 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax Yes but I actually pinged because your name as a member at WikiProject Environment. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. I Googled the org, which is apparently a charity, but don't see a lot of WP:RS in the five minutes I looked, but there are numerous hits of sources of various quality. I'm on the fence, frankly. The org exists, and may be notable by our standards with some work. Or not. Jus da fax 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any significant notability here and I am equally dubious about the environmental credentials. Catering for Gap year students is often cloaked in the respectability of "environmentalism" but doesn't often deliver. From the article and what little seems to exist on the web I cannot make a judgement about this outfit except that if fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:11, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gerken[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Only the Kansas City Star article qualifies for notability. The Jesus Freak Hideout article is about an album and only mentions the subject in passing. Similar to other links. The rest are similarly poor sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of several notable bands he satisfies WP:NMUSIC and there are sources that can be cited to verify the basic facts, e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nonsense. Show me where the subject himself gets coverage. He himself is not notable. See WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What on Earth are you on about? See WP:NMUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles #6. --Michig (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are you on about: "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Just because they meet one of the criteria does not mean that the subject is notable. This subject has only had one feature story about him. That tells me that he is not notable. If he were notable, he would get more than passing mentions in the articles that mention his name as a member of the band. So let me ask you again, what are you on about? NMUSIC is not stand-alone criteria that presumes that anyone who meets any criteria automatically deserves a Wikipedia article. You've tried to make this an absolute criteria in the past and have been told you're wrong in the past. This is just one more instance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've been told several times that the GNG is not the only notability criterion but it never seems to sink in and you continue to insist that GNG is satisfied every time. Now that you've found the relevant guideline it should be clear that what I wrote is not 'nonsense', even if you disagree with it. I am applying what WP:N actually states. You are not. --Michig (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry that you think I'm relying only on GNG. I'm not. I'm relying on a clear understanding of notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return to author's userspace as a compromise as I am split because the article would seem minimally acceptable but until then, userfying may be best until a better article is available as "Jason Gerken drummer producer" found some links at Books and browser but not much. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 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! 02:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 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 redirect to José Couso. SwisterTwister, please merge any necessary content. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Gibson[edit]

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

Ostensibly a BLP, but really an article about a crime. Moreover, the person named was never arrested or tried for said crime in (currently) 12 years. There has been no significant coverage in years, and no active campaign to even have him arrested at this point. In the end, this is NOTNEWS, and the flurry is over. MSJapan (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to José Couso. No need for a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 16 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! 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect obviously as it seems he is best known through José Couso. Pinging DGG and GraemeLeggett. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPW Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

Except database there is no sources. Sismarinho (talk) 09:23, 16 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! 02:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X-Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, borderline speedy A7. No independent sources listed and a search only revealed passing mentions, nothing in-depth. shoy (reactions) 17:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete allowing recreation if the company receives suficient coverage in the future. There are only refereces about some products, not the company. If at least two indepent references from reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company not just a product are added to meet our notability requieremets for companies or our general notability guidelines I would change my vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment jamesdawn added more links to independent sources as requested by Wikipedians shoy and crystallizedcarbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDawn (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until better can be applied. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page should stay in my opinion but edit severely; as others are already doing seeing the history page. outdoormen — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutdoorMen (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I am willing to edit it and leave it open for a re-review should I get a week max. We can move the page in the interim too as an alternate option. I see the obvious problems of creating a page in hurry. Devopam (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a weakly disguised advert--Petebutt (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to edit the article. Please have a re-look when feasible. Devopam (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks Devopam but it's still likely not enough but we can draft and userfy it to your userspace if you wish. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree SwisterTwister , on the notability part definitely . If, the final decision goes for a Delete, then rather please move it to my userspace and I will try to enhance it with available info at a later moment. Devopam (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the article and hopefully improved it. The referencing could be better but the task is very difficult because of all the OS-X systems and the like. Given the current references, I think we should allow this article. gidonb (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is incredibly weak, self published material and product reviews. There is nothing in-depth about the company. It just does not meet notability requirements. If this company disappears, are we even going to be able to find that out? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy) - agree with Smallbones, the current sources are mostly minor, SPS or quotes of company statements. Maybe a deeper search within Dutch sources can reveal more information, or wait a while until the company has received more coverage. Looking through the article, some of its main claims would definitely need stronger sources too ("only" manufacturer - self-sourced, "X-Systems' products are HEXA-Proof" - unclear sourcing and certification background for only 1 product, "background of company name" - unsourced and a bit PR). I appreciate, that it's difficult to find sourcing for such specialist companies (and it is only 2 years old), but the topic seems to be WP:TOOSOON for now. GermanJoe (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Company seem to be only dutch manufacturer of smart phones. But name of the company should be moved to X-Systems (company).--Human3015^TALK 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company would appear not to be notable, as stated, but the sources indicate that one or more of its products may well qualify for inclusion. As a process matter, I would ask that we avoid recommending speedy deletion (even though A7 does in fact provide for organizations) except in the gravest of circumstances where WP:AGF has failed us and the integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake. To my mind, this is more of a case of mis-stated notability. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy as per Devopam's request. Not enough coverage at the moment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the 9 days that passed since this AfD has started, major improvements have been made in the referencing of this article. Hence I suggest that those who had earlier reached the conclusion that deletion may be in place, will review their opinions in light of its current references. It may even be in order to withdraw the nomination. As someone pointed out, it is not ok to speedy articles like this entry even before said improvements. gidonb (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP only three of the references talk about the company rather than individual products, and of those none seem to be independent. The first is the corporate page, another is clearly and advertisement with a link to the corporate page (visit our page) and the third also looks like a paid promotional article. To justify keeping the the article at least two independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company should be inserted. If they can´t be found at present time I suggest moving the article to the userspace of Devopam as requested so it can be recreated once the company receives the minimum coverage to meet our policies for inclusion.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crystallizedcarbon, I have added even more references, mostly articles about the company! The article meets WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gidonb:: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that WP:NCORP or WP:GNG are met for this article. In both cases we need at least two independent(neutral) reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the company not just a product. Most of the sources in the article are not valid reliable sources, as many are just blogs. Additionally many of them are clearly promotional.

In the current version I see three references about the company and not individual products I don´t think any of them is valid to establish the company's notability:

"About X-Systems Brand". X-Systems: Links to the company page so it is not valid to establish notability.
"What Is X-Systems – All-Weather Rugged Quality". cryptbond.com: Broken link the site is no longer working.
"Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German): Talks about products not the company.
"X-Systems Has Rugged Waterproof Phones And Tablets". Gizmo Editor: Even though it's a blog, it's author might be considered a reliable source for that field, but the article does not talk in depth about the company.
"X Map Systems Proudly Launches Lineup of Revolutionary Rugged Devices". Go Guides: Blog and clearly promotional article.
"X Systems: Stoere telefoons en tablets – gebouwd om lang mee te gaan!" [X systems: Tough phones and tablets - built to last!] (in Dutch). Enduro: Blog and clearly promotional article, it ends up to with a link to the corporate page that reads "visit our page".

To meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG I think we need at least two references from sources which are clearly reliable and with in-depth content, not promotional articles. I still think that this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON as the company probably will receive the needed coverage to meet our guidelines in the future. what do you think? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK you asked me to share with you where we disagree. Two articles, the first comes with the strongest disagreement:

"Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German). QUAD-ATV Magazin. Retrieved 18 October 2015.

This is not, as you say, "about products not the company", but an article about the company and its entire product line!

Second, the article:

Manning, Ric (8 September 2015). "X-Systems Has Rugged Waterproof Phones And Tablets". Gizmo Editor. Retrieved 22 October 2015.

We agree that Ric Manning, as a technology journalist of stature, is a trusted source, also when writing on his own news source. The article, while short, contains sufficient information about the company to be considered "in depth". Importantly it also fails to qualify any of the points that lead to failure to achieve this criterium.

The above by itself leads to a clear conclusion that the article meets WP:NCORP.

On an beyond, the width of articles on the company's specific products also deserves some some credit. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gidonb: the "Xmap Systems: Navigation und Tracking" [Xmap Systems: Navigation and Tracking] (in German)" is mostly about products it mentions the company very briefly just to say that it makes those products. The other thing I also have questions about the independence of the source. It looks to me like a paid-for advertisement. The article just showcases the products (pictures included) and ends up with a link to the company's page. I am still missing at least one clearly independent source with true in-depth coverage of the company to be able to justify meeting WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.--Crystallized C (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take this one step back for a moment. What is X-Systems? It's a Dutch company (real structure is a little bit more complicated from what I've read) that directly designs and manufactures (through third parties) rugged electronic devices. If an article discusses the company, its product line, and product timeline than that is about as much depth as you will ever get for such a company. End of story one would think, but no, now suddenly the article is not independent. In other words, this has become a moving target. It was only show me where I'm wrong, and I'll change my opinion, now it has become: doesn't matter what the facts are, I'll find new ways to attack this. Fair enough. From what I can tell, QUAD-ATV is an independent German source for the terrain vehicle interest, hence also the interest in outdoor tracking, navigation, and communication systems. It is also distributed in print. The author, CHK, is in it with initials, as are other authors in this magazine. Pictures of products are often taken from websites. This is common practice in almost all magazines. A relevant link at the bottom is another piece of information on the company and somewhat undermines the prevailing 'lack of depth' argument. That's right, it only strengthens an article! To end on a positive note, there seems to be no argument about the article by Ric Manning. In conclusion, we have two in depth sources about the company, and it fully meets WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gidonb: I am sorry but we seem disagree on what is in depth coverage. To me just a phrase informing that the company started in the Netherlands two years ago followed by a product listing with release dates features and prices is no different than the routine coverage that can be found on any sales page. There is no significant additional information or analysis other than what can be usually found in any sales listing. Just routine product descriptions along with retail prices and a link to the company page, no comparison with its competition no mention of any issues or cons, no context of usage etc.

We both agree that sources can verify that the company exists and makes rugged cell phones in the Netherlands but this alone is not enough. WP:ORGSIG asks for sources with in depth coverage that show that the company "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". I don´t see this as being the case.

To summarize, no, I don't think the source provides the in-depth coverage of the company necessary to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and even if I can't prove whether the article is paid by the company or not, it still looks like a promotional piece to me. I will feel comfortable recommending its inclusion as soon as we have a new reliable source that is clearly independent and with true in-depth coverage of the company. That is why I recommend moving it to the user space until the company does receive the needed coverage. Regards.--Crystallized C (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page of the discussable company is in my opinion relevant for Wikipedia, as it contains one of the few tech companies within the Netherlands. Next to this its most likely that only Wikipedian(s) who specifically search for the discussable company will read the information on the page, they as I did will appreciate the additional information/insight of the company. Last but not least; currently the page contains narrow and encyclopedic writing of the content. GameAlien

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unmistakable PR article. The reviews are either not substantial or not from sources we would consider reliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which phrase still came across as promoting the firm? gidonb (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KE Software[edit]

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

NN software firm with no in-depth coverage - other than it was once acquired by Axiell. All of the sources in the article are primary from customers or a marketing site. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 23:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I'm not seeing much to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is important as a specialist provider of software for cataloguing museum collections and archives. It has been described as ...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services for natural history museums, cultural history museums, art museums, herbaria, botanic gardens, archives and special collections. The company’s clients include the three largest museums in the world. [34] Its role in museum collection management is recognized in the large number of museum users world wide. note I was the writer and so declare my interest Garyvines (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) I have added a bunch of other third party sources which identify the importance of the company's KE Emu program to museum cataloguing and management, some with quite extensive discussions of the role of its main product KE Emu in museum operations.Garyvines (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reference might be a better indication..http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/19/1053196515387.html Jenny Sinclair, 'Tracking 16 million artefacts', The Sydney Morning Herald May 20 2003]

Comment Gary, you have been here long enough to know that to deny a speedy A7 it is enough to have a credible assertion of notability, not proven notability. That's a very low barrier. At AfD, criteria are more stringent and if you want to argue that an article should be kept, an assertion is not enough but notability must be demonstrated by references to independent reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an up-front statement of notability and additional independent sources to support this - see refs 7 and 8.Garyvines (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyvines, #8 is just a customer saying they used the product and all #7 says is that the product complies with some standards body's spec. Neither of those - or all of them together - satisfy either WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG. That's what we're looking for here.

BTW, you may notice that I've WP:THREADed your comment above as it is a continuation of that discussion. The Dissident Aggressor 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be abundantly sourced, with (at this point) 11 references. However, this is deceptive. I looked at every one of them and they are all press releases, a few in-passing mentions, and dependent websites. Not a single one constitutes in-depth coverage in an independent reliable source. As an aside, I'm confused by the preceding !vote: we're at AfD here, not speedy deletion (for which no discussion page is created). --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete remember that unless there is a specific guideline that holds that importance in the field supercedes the need for adequate coverage, that the WP:GNG applies. There is no such guideline for software, nor does the essay WP:NSOFTWARE suggest that. Therefore delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, even though people say nice things like KE Titan (KE Software Pty Ltd), a post-relational information management system that was able to retrieve information at a speed not previously attainable. in passing. --Bejnar (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Bejnar, but what about the Jenny Sinclair article? 'Tracking 16 million artefacts', The Sydney Morning Herald May 20 2003; and how about the Hart and Hallet Article, which puts the development of the program in the context of changes in museum information management from the 1970s on -Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia ISBN 978-1-876944-92-6, and also note that the first of the pc based collection management programs, was developed by the associated Vernon Systems, and note a new paragraph referring to exhibitions in Museum and Heritage Conventions.Garyvines (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of Gary Vines' material here. Clearly documented as a leader in its field. The documentation meets the GNG. In any case, leader in its field is indeed a better standard of suitability for a WP article than the arbitrary standard of GNG--it sayssomething about thr RW. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough and reliable sources, passes notability guideline.Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above account has been confirmed socking, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral and I have struck their comment per WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Demetriades[edit]

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

I have found dozens of sources, but none of them does more than list her name as playing a part or being involved in a show. There is no independent or significant coverage to indicate notability. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems easily obvious here with no better signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in multiple notable productions satisfies WP:NACTOR. TV, Crownies and Janet King (TV series). Film, Alex & Eve ([35] [36] [37] Dent, Nick (18 October 2015), "Cultural divides explored in opportunely timed rom-com", Daily Telegraph). Stage, multiple such as Sydney Theatre Company’s 2015 production of Arms and the Man (Jones, Deborah (21 September 2015), "Is it a Shaw thing? The audience is split", The Australian - Blake, Jason (21 September 2015), "Shaw farce precision crafted", Sydney Morning Herald - Hook, Chris (17 September 2015), "Heroine a Shaw bet for Andrea", Daily Telegraph - Blake, Elissa (13 September 2015), "Love contest goes beyond a good laugh", Sun Herald - Litson, Jo (6 September 2015), "Andrea's latest theatre gamble is a Shaw thing", Daily Telegraph) Coverage primarily about her satisfying GNG (Fortescue, Elizabeth (13 September 2014), "AT HOME WITH ... Andrea Demetriades", Daily Telegraph - Blake, Elissa (21 January 2012), "'I don't look like the Eliza Doolittle people imagine. I'm not Audrey Hepburn.' Andrea Demetriades", The Sydney Morning Herald). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just given a significant mention in this article in Junkee for her role in Alex & Eve, a notable Australian film in which she has a leading role. [38] Grahame (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some links, some for above sources plus some extras. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Andrea Demetriades feeling right at home in STC’s Perplex. The Daily Telegraph.
^ Andrea Demetriades on a Shaw thing for return to STC main stage. The Daily Telegraph.
^ "Interview: Andrea Demetriades". The Sydney Morning Herald.
^ At home with actress Andrea Demetriades. The Daily Telegraph.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Departure Lounge (TV series)[edit]

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

Created by myself over ten years ago, but not a notable TV series. It ran for one series, and has very little to link to it and provide references. Cloudbound (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam E. Jonah[edit]

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

This article was reported to us at OTRS by someone who received an email proposing a business relationship. Not exactly the classic Nigerian scam but close. I glanced at the references and external links. The single reference is behind a pay wall. The external links aren't contributing to a belief that this is legitimate. I did a quick Google search, and didn't find anything very supportive. This may well be a hoax but I'd like a couple of their eyes to take a look at it and possibly consider a CSD rather than AFD. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add I haven't ruled out the possibility that Sam Jonah is legitimate, but someone other than him, pretending to be him is perpetrating a scam and linking to the Wikipedia article.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose as I was aware of the improvements but looking at it now makes the article seem better and acceptable. Delete in any case because it seems he actually exists per this and this but I'm not seeing any better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Thanks for revisiting the discussion. Just a note that as per WP:NEXIST, topic notability on Wikipedia is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather, notability is based upon overall available sources. As such, even a topic with an article with no sources can be notable, as per whether or not the topic itself it has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With coverage in multiple reliable sources like the UK's Guardian, et al, I would say he passes WP:GNG. He is also on Forbes' list of the 20 most powerful African businessmen today. and has a cover article in Forbes Africa. Probably whoever sent the email was scamming on this guy's name. ABF99 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's received an honorary knighthood for God's sake. Clearly qualifies under WP:ANYBIO #1 if nothing else. Having a scam perpetrated in his name does not invalidate his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references now in the article provide evidence of notability. Peter James (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received significant coverage and passes notability criteria.—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. Also qualifies per WP:ANYBIO point #1 as per being knighted. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm convinced, nice work finding sources and improving the article. I can't think of anything we could do to the article to prevent it being used in a scam, and, arguably, that's not our responsibility.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing arguable about it. It's certainly not our responsibility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Forbes Africa". April 2013.
^ Richard Wachman. "Sam Jonah: Man with the Midas touch". The Guardian.
^ "Vodafone puts noted African businessman on the board". The Times. (subscription required)
^ "Dictionary of African Biography". pp. 218–219.
^ "Historical Dictionary of Ghana". p. 182.
^ Martin Creamer. "Jonah takes over BHP Billiton's Liberian iron-ore interests". Mining Weekly.
^ "Sam Jonah Builds Domitory Block For Adisadel". ghanaweb.com.

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

[1] "Market America's American Dream Machine". Bloomberg Business. (Feature article, 5 pages)

[2] Brie W. "LaLa Anthony, "Fat Joe" Cartegena, Loren Ridinger and More at Market America Conference in Greensboro". carolinastylemag.com.

[3] "Direct Sales Company Allows Miami-Area Founders to Enjoy Extravagant Lifestyle". highbeam.com.(subscription required)

[4] Robin Wauters. "Market America Acquires Bill Gates-Backed Shopping Site Shop.com". TechCrunch.

[5] Market America plans to expand into Philippines. Triad Business Jouranl. (subscription required)

[6] "Market America brings more than 20,000 to Greensboro". Triad Business Jouranl.

[7] Andrea Demetriades feeling right at home in STC’s Perplex. The Daily Telegraph.

[8] Andrea Demetriades on a Shaw thing for return to STC main stage. The Daily Telegraph.

[9] "Interview: Andrea Demetriades". The Sydney Morning Herald.

[10] At home with actress Andrea Demetriades. The Daily Telegraph.

[11] "Forbes Africa". April 2013.

[12] Richard Wachman. "Sam Jonah: Man with the Midas touch". The Guardian.

[13] "Vodafone puts noted African businessman on the board". The Times. (subscription required)

[14] "Dictionary of African Biography". pp. 218–219.

[15] "Historical Dictionary of Ghana". p. 182.

[16] Martin Creamer. "Jonah takes over BHP Billiton's Liberian iron-ore interests". Mining Weekly.

[17] "Sam Jonah Builds Domitory Block For Adisadel". ghanaweb.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]