Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 October 1 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria. In cases where an article is reasonably shown not to meet the gng than the bar is set higher and since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy. Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)[edit]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP SageGreenRider (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Technically passes WP:CRIN, but perhaps this is an example where we have to remind ourselves that they are only guidelines: single match, no runs, no biographical details. StAnselm (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CRIN is a guideline that suggests when a player is likely to be notable enough to have significant coverage. Part of the reason for blanket policies such as this, is that we don't always have access to local sources. Generally a first-class cricketer, even one who only played one match, will have received significant coverage in independent local sources. That said, this is clearly an extreme case. On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical. Harrias talk 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as passes WP:NCRIC. If people want to challenge WP:NCRIC, they should start a proper discussion/debate at WT:CRIC or WT:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if the consensus here is keep then I think WP:NCRIC is too low a bar and should indeed be reviewed. For example, if the topic is a author, then it's not enough to publish a book with a reputable publisher. WP:AUTHOR read in part In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Or maybe WP:AUTHOR is too high of a bar? SageGreenRider (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't compare the inclusion of an author to that of a cricketer. Cricket and the status of matches played makes such a comparison ridiculous. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authors write books. Cricketers play cricket. According to policy neither is notable until multiple independent reliable sources publish significant coverage about what they do. I do not believe such coverage exists in the case of the subject here. SageGreenRider (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the result of policy is the retention of articles like this one, then I respectfully suggest it is broken.SageGreenRider (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I respectfully suggest you haven't the first clue about cricket. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Where do we draw the line? A single major cricket match is the only possible line we can draw, otherwise what is the solution? We have a single, universally workable, criterion by which we judge whether a cricketer is notable for inclusion. We already make it a point to include the most comprehensive and accurate source available to us as to whether or not a cricketer is "notable" by this rule. No further complication needs to be made. Bobo. 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As far as I understand it, the guidelines are exactly the same for every competitive team sport. Cricket, football, American football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey... dozens that I've probably forgotten. Bobo. 23:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP says in part "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." ...so that's what the line is. It beats an expediency based on a singular event IMHO. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please forgive me if I sounded abrupt in my comment. I haven't edited Wikipedia properly for a long time so it's rather fortunate I managed to catch this AfD notification when I did. Bobo. 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No apology necessary. Honest men can have a difference of opinion. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The awkward thing about subject/topic-specific guidelines is that they need to exist so that we do have *some* lower bar. When I started making lists of redlinks of cricketers who (by WP:CRIC guidelines) are notable, I was never expecting there to be as many redlinks as there at first were, especially within English cricket - given how well the subject is already covered. Bobo. 00:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of anything in policy that allows "subject/topic-specific guidelines ... need to exist so that we do have *some* lower bar" SageGreenRider (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • WP:N says in part "...notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..."
    • WP:BLP says in part "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
    • WP:MUST says in part "...the burden of evidence to provide reliable sources is on the editors that include it. Unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable." I understand that local sources are not very accessible to us, but I seriously doubt that the subject of this article ever received substantial coverage in some as yet undiscovered source. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: What the guideline is saying here is that Perera is presumed to be notable. In other words, there would be lots of references to him in Sri Lankan newspapers of the 1990s, if only we could find them. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me implausible that such articles exist in this case. What substance would there be to write about? SageGreenRider (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he is obviously notable for having played a first-class match. But we must also note that his date of birth is unknown and so is his given name. The only thing we can write about him is regarding the solitary match he appeared in. I feel we shouldn't create articles on cricketers with such limited information available. 117.192.188.97 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. But do you feel we should keep it or delete it? SageGreenRider (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say delete, and it's best to not create articles on cricketers whose first name and date of birth both are unknown. Perera is a common surname and "S. Perera" could refer to anyone with that surname and whose first name starts with S. If either of these two basic details (first name and date of birth) can be found on a reliable source, this article might be worth keeping. 117.192.168.221 (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I totally agree with User:SageGreenRider that a policy that argues for keep for such non-entities is broken. I can see this entry as part of a list, but such substubs with no chance of ever growing should not be considered valid individual articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article *does* get deleted then there needs to exist a serious conversation about the consistency of the notability rules for almost all aspects of WP:ATHLETE, which is inextricably linked to WP:BIO. Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all, but this article is not the only article about a first-class cricketer with no known first-name and only a single first-class appearance. We can't have one rule for one and one rule for others. There needs to be consistency. A cricketer who has appeared in a single first-class match is no different from an American footballer who has just one NFL appearance, an ice hockey player who has only one NHL appearance, etc, etc. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about cricketers with just a single first-class appearance. Bobo. 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Whatever the outcome, it seems to me that the presumption in WP:ATHLETE that every appearance will automatically generate substantial coverage is seriously flawed and needs review. A typical newspaper write up will only give substantial coverage to three or four players. In cricket, you have 22 so most won't get even a mention, never mind substantial coverage. In American football the problem is even worse because of free substitution. If each side has an offensive, defensive, and specialty 11, you have 66 players in a game. I'm guessing 60+ of those will not receive substantial media coverage. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being reasonable throughout all of this SageGreenRider. All I will say is that this cricketer is by no means in a unique situation regarding Wikipedia. By working to what a lot of people would consider the "lowest" possible bar (cricketers with a single first-class appearance as directed by WP:CRIC guidelines), I feel that it would be easier to "start from the bottom" and work up, if that makes sense. (Incidentally, that's what I meant when I was referring to a "lower bar" above). Bobo. 21:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just realized that for all my defence of this article I haven't actually !voted myself. Speedy keep for the simple reason of consistency, with the opportunity for further discussion in the right places. As I've explained above, the notability guideline for every single competitive team sport is the same, and if we disallow one from a list of thousands who share the same quality, someone has to go and disallow thousands of others, not just from cricket but from at least five other sports. Cricket is not alone on Wikipedia for being a sport which allows articles for people with a single professional appearance. If I may suggest that if this article is kept, discussion is ignited at the appropriate place for discussion regarding the guidelines on individual sports - of which I believe for competitive team sports, they are all the same - consistent and simple to follow and adhere to. Bobo. 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sports guideline says that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", for a single match player whose name we don't know I doubt any good sources exist, let alone finding them. A reasonable standard would be if a player regularly appears in games and/or if fans at the time could easily recognize them then they probably would have good coverage, thus notable. Single match no-names, not so much. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rainbow unicorn. This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." The keep !votes here have not offered any policy-based argument. StAnselm (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 20:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hăghiac[edit]

Hăghiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to disambiguate here. There are no articles for these villages and en.wiki is not a wiki-dictionary to disambiguate terms and proper names. XXN, 22:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similar case: Hoancă. --XXN, 22:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are many such disambiguation pages that don't have articles yet. Hăghiac on the Romanian wiki shows these villages do exist. It is a plausible search term and hopefully someone will make the articles. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two valid entries, neither primary topic. older ≠ wiser 09:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: valid and useful dab page. PamD 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, XXN, both entries are valid and meet MOS:DABMENTION. It is in no way a dictionary definition, but each entry gives a link to an article with information on a place named Haghiac. That is exactly what a disambiguation page is about - showing readers to pages where they can find information on that topic, whether that information is short or long. It is not totally relevant to this discussion as the page is valid anyway, but both entries would meet WP:NPLACE too. Would the nominator consider removing the nomination and closing this? Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sense in such false disambiguation pages for non-existing articles. Here, on en.wp, probably does not exists a single article about a Romanian village, but there are tonns of such false disambiguation pages with no direct links to relevant articles with titles containing the disambiguated term! With similar succes we can create disambiguation pages for all streets around the world, 98% of them being non-notable and thereby disambigs being useless. Well, you can close this debate, but there is necessary an adjustment to related policy to not admit such ″disambiguations″. --XXN, 16:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a disappointing response. AfD is not here for you to nominate articles because you think the guidelines shouldn't allow them, but because you think they don't meet thr guidelines. Changing guidelines is a topic for discussion elsewhere. This is in no way a false disambiguation page. It links to relevant articles containing information on the disambiguated term, and it's information the reader is interested in, and that your proposal would hide from them. No, we couldn't create dabs for all street names, because they are not things worth mentioning in articles, so there would be no basis for a dab entry for the vast, vast majority of road names. The fact that there aren't many articles on Romania shows room for improvement on our coverage of non-Anglophone topics, not a reason to try to make the information harder for readers to find. As you won't remove your nomination, despite your mistake being pointed out to you by several editors, other editors will have to waste their time as this will probably have to remain open for several days. Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both places now have articles. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I withdraw my nomination. Discussion can be closed.--XXN, 01:24, 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 Withdrawn McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right to rent[edit]

Right to rent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a trial in a renting system, this does not meet WP:GNG and is within WP:NOTNEWS McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put out a message asking for help with an article. Instead I got someone start adding speedy deletion tags on half a dozen articles. How foolish of me to ask for help! Anyway This is a major govt policy in the UK as anyone that types 'right to rent' into google news would realise. Would anyone like to help me improve the article? DanielJCooper (talk) 22:20, 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted (Wande Coal's Album)[edit]

Wanted (Wande Coal's Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. A newly released album with no evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, including the three that I have already added the the article. There is enough to meet GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likely as this seems to have at least an acceptable amount of coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn I withdraw my nomination to Speedy Keep the article per above. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:14, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imoh Son of David[edit]

Imoh Son of David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The sources provided are social blogs with no editorial oversight. He is evidently not the subject of Sahara Reporters. He might be notable in the future but WP:TOOSOON to have an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia at this time. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. The article is overly promotional ("foremost atheist author" etc.) Most links are to his own articles or his books on Amazon. Every URL was mal-formed (I've fixed that) which made verifying the sources rather difficult. Others link to pages that seem unrelated to the subject. I suspect that the author of this article should have gone through AfC because they don't understand notability or referencing. If nothing else, this is too soon because the book's date on Amazon is Oct 15, 2015, so it's only been out a few weeks. The article was created 2 days ago. We should at least offer "userfy" and going through AfC. However, I'm not very hopeful that it would pass. LaMona (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and above editors. LaMona's assessment is particularly spot-on. I would agree with the userfy, except the creator of the article has not shown an interest in participating in this discussion. Onel5969 TT me 12:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger (professional wrestling)[edit]

Trigger (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A professional wrestling group that has existed for less than a month and has done nothing in that month that makes them notable. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:51, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Fazl Syed Mahmood Quadri[edit]

Abul Fazl Syed Mahmood Quadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability proven, esp. for English Wikipedia. The person has published a few non-English books but no independent reviews are available. Google returns few hits if any. The original author might have conflict of interest (the article subject likely is a family member, judging from family name). kashmiri TALK 21:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notability established. Weak internet presence. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another biography without any biographical details, and none that might be found in English to verify such facts. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing on the search engines turned up enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 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. May be editorially redirected.  Sandstein  07:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes by magnitude[edit]

Earthquakes by magnitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear what this is, and I'd say that it's just not necessary. It looks like it's going to reproduce, in part, what we already have in our lists (in the Compared to other years section). I can't be sure of this, but that's what it looks like. The user that posted this fails to communicate, so we'll likely never know, but some of their other other creations have been problematic. At one point, the editor requested deletion, only to change their mind half an hour later. This article is not a good fit for WikiProject Earthquakes. Dawnseeker2000 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - this would be a very interesting article if it provided some content. bare naked tables with no explanation offer little to a reader. poorly sourced. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:48, 31 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 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if someone is willing to finish the chart; or, if someone really wanted to push it, Merge to Lists of earthquakes or List of 21st-century earthquakes. I don't see the duplicate content in Lists of earthquakes that StarryGrandma implied. The information seems encyclopedic, and it's not really a "list of earthquakes", but more like a list of magnitudes with the event counts for each year. The main problems I see with this page are: (1) it's incomplete; (2) the tables need to be flipped so that the magnitudes are on top and years on the side, or the table is going to become very wide as the years go on; and (3) the numbers have periods instead of commas for thousands separators. --Closeapple (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on my above vote: Dawnseeker2000 pointed out that some earthquake year articles do have this kind of chart, for integer magnitude ranges and the appropriate decade. They don't have them broken down by tenths; but then, neither does most of this page under discussion, since the tables are blank right now. --Closeapple (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is an WP:Encyclopedia and should be a summary of published work. Data like this can go in Wikidata, but for it to be in Wikipedia, it needs to cite sources which also present tables like this and this article needs to have a narrative. This is out of scope of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 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. Notability requirements have been meet. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haining Open[edit]

Haining Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's first reference discusses the player mentioned in its title, not the event, second reference hits a 404 error (dead link). There may be references in Chinese to indicate the notability of this article's subject, but there do not appear to be sufficient English language sources that do. Failing their appearance, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444Talk 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two of the keep !votes are not policy based arguments putting this discussion at 1 delete and 1 keep. The WP:BURDEN is on the keep camp to show GNG is met. Giving this article either more time or more participation for policy based comments. Mkdwtalk 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. From de:Haining Open 2014 the verifiable notability of the 2014 ought to be unquestioned. I did a search for sources on this years tournament, and there are plenty, a little selection in four languages...[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

References

  1. ^ "Ding Junhui Wins Championship in Haining Open". cri.cn.
  2. ^ Zhang Jingya. "Haining Open: Ding Junhui outclasses Xu Si 4-1 to advance - CCTV News - CCTV.com English". cntv.cn.
  3. ^ Zhang Jingya. "CBSA Haining Open: World Number 3 from China crushes compatriot Tang 4-0 - CCTV News - CCTV.com English". cntv.cn.
  4. ^ "Ding Junhui in Semi-finals at Haining Open". cri.cn.
  5. ^ "Haining Open: Ding Junhui odwrócił losy finału i zwyciężył przed własną publicznością". Onet Sport. 23 October 2015.
  6. ^ "Haining Open: wielka stawka mało prestiżowego turnieju, świetna gra chińskich snookerzystów". Onet Sport. 21 October 2015.
  7. ^ "Ding Junhui holt bei den Haining Open ersten Titel seit 16 Monaten". Eurosport Deutschland. 23 October 2015.
  8. ^ "BBC Sport - Ryan Day beats Ding Junhui at International Championship". BBC Sport.
  9. ^ "Ding Junhui tumbles out of International Championship to Day after missing easy red". Eurosport British. 27 October 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  10. ^ "World Ladies' Champion enters Asian Snooker Tour event". The news Hub. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  11. ^ "Allen progresses at International Championship". RTÉ Sport. 27 October 2015.
  12. ^ Александр Покачуев. "Китайское вторжение". mk.ru.
Sam Sailor Talk! 01:29, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Mansfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Angela Mansfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a city councillor. Prior discussion landed at no consensus, and there's been no discernible improvement since, so it's time for a revisit. While Indianapolis is a large enough city that a councillor could be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #3 if the article were substantively written and properly sourced, the "automatic inclusion for big city councillors" which was cited by the keep side in the original AFD applies only to cities in the global city class of metropolises — which Indianapolis is not in. Every past or present Indianapolis city councillor who actually has a Wikipedia article got that article for holding some office at the state or federal levels after their terms on city council — with the exception of the newly created Zach Adamson, also already up for deletion, nobody else has an article if Indianapolis' city council is the highest level of notability they have attained. In addition, this article is sitting on one solitary reference — a Blogspot entry, which doesn't count as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. Despite claims of further sourceability in the original discussion, not even one source has been added to the article in the intervening four years — and even in the original discussion, the dispute hinged on whether or not there was enough sourcing that was substantively about her. And on the matter of substance, all we've got here is that she voted for the city's human rights ordinance in 2006. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance of the article, is enough to get a city councillor into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We need more and better sources to keep articles on members of city councils.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum standard for automatic "because she exists" inclusion of a city councillor is not "metropolitan city of regional prominence" — it's "alpha, beta or gamma class global city", which Indianapolis is not. In a city in Indianapolis" "metropolitan but not globally prominent" class, a city councillor could pass WP:NPOL #3 if her passage of WP:GNG, on the strength of media coverage, was already demonstrated in the as written version of the article — but Indianapolis is not a city where city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist. It's a city where a city councillor only gets an article if you can write a good and well-sourced one right off the bat, and not one where any councillor ever gets to keep, even temporarily, an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because no one's taken the time to improve the article does not mean that the article is not notable. Fyi - This does seem to be more of a personal matter to you. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "because no one's taken the time to improve the article" does "mean that the article is not notable". City councillors in places outside the global city class of cities are not a class of topic that are entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist; they're a class of topic that only gets to have an article if that article is already well-written and well-sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG right off the bat. If you think she can be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:NPOL #3, then the onus is on you to show that by actually putting in the work to source her over NPOL #3 — but our notability standards for city councillors do not permit her to even temporarily keep an article that's sourced exclusively to a Blogspot blog with no evidence of RS coverage shown. Even a person who actually held an "automatic NPOL pass" office, like a President of the United States or a state governor, still wouldn't get to keep an article that was sourced that poorly.
And no, it's not "personal", except insofar as respecting and maintaining and following Wikipedia's content and sourcing and inclusion standards is a thing that we're all supposed to take seriously. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consensus has consistently been that we do not routinely include members of the city council for even large cities like Indianapolis. The only US cities I'm sure we include are NYC and Chicago, & I think I could justify Boston. Outside the US, it would depend on the role of the council. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and above editors. Not enough non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to meet notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Adamson[edit]

Zach Adamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a city councillor. While Indianapolis is certainly a large enough city that a member of its city council could potentially be considered to satisfy WP:NPOL #3 if the article were well-written and well-sourced, it is not in the narrow range of global cities for which we automatically accept all city councillors — with one exception which I'm about to nominate separately, every past or present Indianapolis city councillor who actually has a Wikipedia article got that article for holding some office at the state or federal levels after their terms on city council. And this article, for that matter, is neither well-written nor well-sourced, reading like a campaign brochure and resting entirely on primary sources like his own website, a newspaper article in which he's the bylined author and not a subject, and a press release on the website of a directly affiliated organization. All of which means that nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced enough, to get him into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading the claim. Indiana had openly LGBT elected officials before Adamson; he's just being claimed here as the first LGBT person to hold office at the county level in particular, not the first one to hold any office whatsoever in the entire state. And while that might be enough to make him eligible for a properly sourced article, no claim of notability ever entitles a person to keep an article that's parked exclusively on primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree except for the last part. Cut the cake fine enough and we all have a piece. First LGBT elected official at the Indiana county level is a pretty fine cut - not notable even with decent sourcing.Peter Rehse 17:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

He is not, was not first openly elected county official in Indiana, Sue Wanzer elected to Monroe County School Board, Bloomington, IN from 2000 to present, Elizabeth Cure Monroe County Circuit Judge 2008 to present...if there are two that precede him, there are probably more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.224.2 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per the nom (Bearcat), who must be lauded for their excellently detailed nomination rationale. Onel5969 TT me 13:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Campbell (Musician)[edit]

Robert Campbell (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ostensibly a WP:BLP of a musician, this is actually a WP:COATRACK for his album instead of an article about him. The problem, however, is that WP:NALBUMS specifies that an album cannot have an article if the musician or band who recorded it doesn't have an article first — and moving the album's article so that it's simultaneously serving as an "article" about the musician is not a bypass around that if the content is all about the album. Furthermore, the article is resting entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with no evidence of coverage in any reliable sources to confer notability on either the musician or the album. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can find enough sources to do this properly next time (i.e. a BLP of the musician as an actual topic in his own right, and then a separate article about the album.) Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as WP:COATRACK as per @Bearcat's rationale which I adopt. Quis separabit? 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bearcat's analysis. Pure WP:COATRACK, in addition, searches did not turn up anything to show that this musician passes WP:GNG. News turned up a bunch of hits, but none seem to be about this particular musician (although they turned up at least 4 other musicians of this same name). Onel5969 TT me 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS for subject of article. Only 3rd party source is an individual's blog. LaMona (talk) 19:47, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

66 Raw[edit]

66 Raw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not found a single reliable source for this article. No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG Jim Carter 19:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Completely unsourced article, and I'm not surprised. Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Books and Highbeam returned a single hit - to the channel's website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 15:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:47, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Defence Institute[edit]

NBC Defence Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable institute. Despite editing from various new accounts for 3 weeks, the article has no independent sources, and no evidence of notability independent of the main university. Note: I removed one link to an unreliable "news website" (see history). Google search for English-language sources found nothing in-depth. Faculties and sub-institutes without in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources should be covered in the main article University of Defence (Czech Republic) (which also lacks sources). Wikipedia is not a webhost to publish indiscriminate organization info. GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all articles lack any reliable sources, and have been created by the same group of COI-editors. An (admittedly quick) Google search revealed no significant coverage, only passing mentions and listings.

Faculty of Military Health Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Faculty of Military Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Faculty of Military Leadership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Security and Military Strategic Studies Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please let me know, if any of the 4 institutes are special cases and need separate discussion, but it should be possible to handle them in one case. GermanJoe (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete likely as I'm not seeing any better improvement or a need for separate articles. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I haven't been able to find any sources either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - nothing in searches showed the notability of any of them. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELIX STUDIOS[edit]

HELIX STUDIOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Fails both criteria, as no independent secondary reliable sources seem to exist to provide significant coverage and assert any notability. If it weren't for the credible claim of significance that the article seems to barely scrape, I'd say that this article could be A7'd. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability with very few reputable sources backing it up. S. Salim (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the " largest academy studio company in the world" might be a "suitable" assertion of notability if this were instead the biggest studio to create nature films, or anime films, or drama films, or thriller films... but one the largest to manufacture gay "twink" porn? Nope. I think we can ignore that it is not spoken about in The New York Times, and is instead spoken of in sources that are sullied and refutable. We can ignore coverage and mention in genre sources such as Q-Notes, LGBT Weekly, The Wire, Brow Beat, Big Gay Picture Show, SDGLN, Spin, Tetu (French), Zeit (German), or GGG (German), and let this twink film academy go. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 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. I am invoking my personal discretion here and closing this ahead of schedule. This discussion has devolved into ad hominem and other inappropriate behavior that is not at all related to the article in question. This is not the correct venue for that. — Earwig talk 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triadenum fraseri[edit]

Triadenum fraseri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:G5. Page creator is now blocked sock of indef banned user USER:ColonelHenry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The G5 has already been declined and no additional rationale has been provided. As a species of plant it is inherently notable. --Michig (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy delete was declined, Michig, but the article is still eligible for deletion based on WP:G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me what good would come to the encyclopaedia if we were to delete this article. As an exercise, do not cite any essay, rule or edict. Alakzi (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G5 exists to keep those who sock from being encouraged to sock again -- it's along the same lines of WP:DENY. If the article created by the sock is allowed to stand, the sock gets recognition and a "permission" to do the same again, under another sock account. It's a psychological and behavioral move, actually. When a sock creates articles, adds content, uploads files and sees their username attached, there is a feeling of satisfaction that legitimizes and encourages further socking behavior. For many in Wikipedia, there is an emotional feeling of "ownership" when they have started an article, developed it, and added content. When they see their username attached to such edits, it gives them a sense of satisfaction and legitimizes socking. If their edits and/or created articles and uploaded files are removed, there is no recognition, no visual encouragement to continue in the unwanted behavior (socking). The essay on WP:Deny recognition explains this quite nicely.
One more note, Alakzi: The socking and disruption by this individual is not just a one-sock deal. What's been going on with this individual has been happening for (from what I can gather) at least a decade. See this for a more in-depth look at it all. This is an extreme case of long term abuse and should be dealt with accordingly. In fact, I encourage all editors chiding me for bringing this AfD look at the extensive history of this user as outlined in the AN/I link above (that would include Michig, Liz, and even DD2K. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not necessary to undo all of their work - both good and bad - because an incredible essay that cites no credible sources says so. If and when you've been published, I might consider your theory of the mind of 'socks'. Until such time, allow me to be sceptical that this practice (a) acts as a deterrent and (b) outweighs the damage that would befall the project by deleting a sourced article on a notable topic. Alakzi (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be no good reason for this nomination except animosity between editors. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Animosity has absolutely nothing to do with it, and I highly resent your implication that I am doing this simply to piss off the now-banned editor, Liz. It's comments like that which make me remember why I stated what I did at your RfA (even though, in the end, I did !vote "Support"). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious to anyone with common sense that you are reverting all of that editors comments, edits, files and articles based on pure animosity. I suggest you revert yourself or you will find yourself at ANI for disrupting the project with your Pointy behavior. This is just pure disruption and hurting the project. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so certain that my actions are blockable, solely out of animosity, and are meant to hurt "the project", please feel free to take your concerns to AN/I and see how it works out, DD2K. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The material is encyclopedic and backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. The persistent efforts to take revenge by deleting the content created by a blocked user are disruptive in and of themselves and only serve to make Wikipedia worse. Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prove your claims of revenge or keep such personal attacks to yourself, Alansohn. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of your disruptive edits uses the same edit summary, pointing to your efforts to undo and remove encyclopedic content using WP:DENY as an excuse. That's exactly what you say you're doing. Every single edit you've reverted and undone has proven to be a removal of productive content. Let me remind you that WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy that serves as a valid justification for anything. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you that WP:NPA is not "a mere essay", that you already have a history of being brought to task for personal attacks and incivility against other editors, and that your dislike for my actions in regard to denying a banned sockmaster and long-term abuser is no valid justification for your continued personal attacks against me. Like I said, please prove your accusations or lock it up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you that nothing here is a personal attack; It's a commentary on your persistent pattern of pointless disruption, whatever your excuse. Stop destroying Wikipedia and I'll stop pointing out that you're being disruptive. I've proven my claim based on your edit summaries and you're abusive use of WP:DENY to justify your deletion of sourced content. Deal with the problems that you've caused and stop playing the blame game. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing here is a personal attack" Bullshit. It's just a continuation of the personal attacks and false accusations you have been launching against me practically everywhere you've been in Wikipedia for the last several hours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bullshit" is a personal attack. Look above and you'll see that you have no company agreeing with you that this article isn't encyclopedic; Every one agrees that your motives here appear questionable and that the result is disruptive. Calm down, cool off, and try to contribute to Wikipedia. This ain't working. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "bullshit" is a personal attack? Not hardly. Nice try, though. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 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 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Role[edit]

Critical Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no significant reliable coverage for this webseries on Twitch. It doesn't help that its name makes it difficult to look for hits. I thrice tagged this for speedy deletion but various users kept removing the tag, so AfD it is. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion tag has been removed repeatedly because your claim of the lack of significance is unfounded. The article lists several prolific voice actors as cast of the show. It has hundreds of thousands of viewers and has collected tens of thousands USD in charity donation, each of which alone should be enough to qualify as a reason for WP:Significance. 5.147.15.44 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a popular web series or being involved in charity are not strong claims to notability. Please read WP:GNG and WP:POPULARITY for more information. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not required under WP:Significance, which was your initial reason for speedy deletion. I quote: "Significance is a much lower standard than notability." 5.147.15.44 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the speedy deletion tag by one of the editors on this page was inappropriate. That said, I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It is no less significant or notable than articles on other major Twitch streamers like Trump_(Hearthstone_streamer), who has a much more difficult name to search for. Deleting the article because of the common name despite being well-sourced is an error, in my opinion.--Marstead (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the the notation. Several of the new editors are more aware of the rules governing the speedy deletion tag, and are making strides to be sure that the article is conforming to standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.16.204 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, it probably was inappropriate, especially doing so without any explanation. But as someone not familiar with the daily workings of Wikipedia, I have to ask: is it a common practise to flag new articles for speedy deletion, minutes after they have been created, before anyone even had a chance to work them over? 176.198.254.196 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The commonality of the name makes it difficult to research, but I can find no sources which cover the show in-depth which are from reliable independent sources. WP:Significance is a standard used in speedy deletions; AfD requires the higher standard of notability, which this article, which is currently sourced only by non-reliable, and non-independent sources, does not come close to meeting. Onel5969 TT me 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article does reference such a source: A 1 hour and 20 minutes long podcast with Critical Role as it's main topic (in-depth) made by Wizards of the Coast, a major games developer (reliable) that is not directly affiliated to Geek&Sundry or Critical Role (independent).[1] 5.147.15.44 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that you consider WOTC "independent" of what is essentially a giant product placement of one of their major commercial lines is a bit telling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge WOTC is no way, shape or form affiliated with Geek&Sundry or Critical Role; that makes it independent. And according to WP:BIASED, "sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". 176.198.254.47 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been steadily gaining specific independent medial coverage citations that speak to notability and significance and that are not directly affiliated to Geek&Sundry or Critical Role (independent).Example [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennefRiggles (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GNG has a three prong requirement where each prong must be met, and the EW fails spectacularly on the "significant coverage" prong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I disagree with one editor's repeated removal of the speedy deletion tag from this article, it has received edits from other users and appears to be a significant and well-sourced article. Any vote to delete this article should explain why Trump_(Hearthstone_streamer) and Kripparrian should not also be deleted by the same argument. Trump & Kripparrian are comparably popular Twitch streamers but their wiki articles are more poorly-sourced. This article should not be deleted because of its "common name". Please see other sources posted here by other editors for reference.--Marstead (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could see an argument to rename the article Critical Role (web series) if this helps with the name commonality concern.--Marstead (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see enough sites on the article covering and mentioning the show to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria Darquis (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since sufficient, independent sources exist. Disambiguation, as per Marstead's suggestion could be helpful. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Independant sources citing Critical Role - Previous users stated coverage for the series was hard to find.

[3] Sandiego.com's announcement of G&S and Critical Roles appearance at San Diego Comic Con
[4] IMDB entry for Critical Role

KennefRiggles (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) KennefRiggles[reply]

[5] Tvtropes entry for Critical Role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[6] "Vin Diesel nerding out over Dungeons and Dragons is an amazing slice of internet" The Independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Diesel Powered D&D: Watch Vin Play Dungeons and Dragons as His 'Last Witch Hunter' Hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems all but one of the above are just brief mentioned and are more about D&D and the streamers rather than the show itself. If the streamer had his own Wikipedia article I would not be opposed to a merge. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and other than the Independent, not one is a reliably published source. And the Independent is textbook example of trivial mention.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not appropriate ..Previous suggestion of "merging" with the streamer article does not apply, Geek & Sundry, who produces the show is a legit company with its own Wikipedia article, and over 50% of the cast members also have their own Wikipedia articles, wich are clearly detailed in the article in question and have been since 24 October 2015. --KennefRiggles (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not gained by being tied to notable others. the topic itself must be the subject of coverage -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny how people that vote for deletion keep ignoring the D&D podcast (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/critical-role-livestreaming-dd) which has been referenced in the article since day 1. 95.222.157.46 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny how people consider that WOTC should somehow be considered an "independent" source for a subject that is essentially a product placement commercial for a major WOTC product. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that this defensive attitude may be poisoning the well for the editors voting to delete this page, even though this user's point is valid. I think the decision to Keep or Delete this page should not be made in reaction to this attitude or the repeated erroneous removal of the speedy deletion tag--please see my comment and compromise suggestion below. I think given the quality source (Official Wizards of the Coast reference) a disambiguated article title should be a fair compromise for all involved. Marstead (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Suggestions Regarding Geek & Sundry Merge; Disambiguation Compromise Good comments, everyone, and thank you for calling out the Geek & Sundry article! Reviewing that article (Geek & Sundry), I think arguing to merge Critical Role there is comparable to merging Breaking Bad into the article on AMC_(TV_channel). I'm not sure that's the right solution, particularly since the other programming for Geek & Sundry doesn't have comparable details listed. It would stand out in that article. There is already precedent in the Programming section of the Geek & Sundry article to include links to details on the individual shows, where such details are available (for example, see TableTop_(web_series) and The_Guild_(web_series). In fact, that precedent (appending (web_series) to the article name) is a good argument for renaming Critical Role to Critical Role_(web_series) and keeping it listed on the Geek & Sundry page. I think this is a fair compromise to those who originally requested speedy deletion, which was in part based on the "commonality" of the show's name. As has been discussed above, the article has been improved; it is decently-written and reasonably-sourced (in particular, see the Wizards of the Coast official podcast link) and I don't really think there's a strong argument to outright delete it here if renaming it will make everyone happy. Again, I feel like the articles on comparably notable partnered Twitch streamers like Kripparrian should be our baseline for comparison. Given the amount of improvement on the article since the initial nomination for speedy deletion, I think it deserves to remain, maybe under a new disambiguated name. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper - speedy deletion is meant to be used when an article is obviously bad, completely unnotable, or clearly vandalism. While this article still has room for improvement, I do not believe it is any of these three things. Marstead (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 5.147, KennefRiggles, and especially Marstead. Disambiguating the title would be beneficial. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 20:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - if anything, it is now better sourced than last I weighed in, and I don't find the previous arguments to be convincing. If there's really a concern that the title is confusing, Marstead's suggestion for disambiguation would be fine, but given the lack of other similarly titled or easily confused articles I don't know that it's necessary Darquis (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there's no better coverage convincingly better but feel welcome to restart when a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adorya Baly[edit]

Adorya Baly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. No sources conform WP:RS in the article. WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have created over two dozen AFDs of national beauty pageant winners that have failed (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Pageant_articles_under_attack for a partial list), and your talk page shows many failed speedy nominations that failed. Frankly I don't think you created this in good faith, and individually nominating beauty queens does not appear to be appropriate way to contest the overall basis of notability that impacts hundreds of persons. I have no vested interest in these pages, but you're going on a crusade here. --  R45  talk! 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far your disruptive campaign on AN/I. I hope you have time to read WP:AGF. The Banner talk 00:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At least this source confirms that she is winner of Miss British Virgin Islands so she is notable. Miss British Virgin Islands is member of Miss Universe.--Human3015TALK  14:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being Miss BVI does not make her notable. What makes someone notable is substantial coverage in relaible independent sources, and in this case there is nothing outside of the context of the pagent itself, so that's WP:ONEEVENT, for which we have a redirect tot he article on the pageant. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Multiple independent sources exist regarding this person ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) enough to pass WP:GNG, but this person definitely fits into WP:1E in that the event itself is not highly significant (a new winner is "crowned" every year). Therefore, a redirect to Miss British Virgin Islands appears to be the most appropriate action. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above- No evidence of notability, Fails BLP1E &. –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy's rationale above. The pageant editors need to (a) understand the concept of individual notability for a stand-alone article requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, and (b) have a plan for how they are going to treat contestants who are not notable in either the main pageant article or a list. Winning a pageant, without satisfying GNG, does not make a winner notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:51, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zedrick Restauro[edit]

Zedrick Restauro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails our subject specific notability policy of WP:NACTOR. Subject has not played any significant role in the mainstream films, only minor roles. Other than WP:SPSs and unreliable sites, I can't see any significant coverage in third party reliable sources other than few passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Jim Carter 10:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Average and ordinary actor with no outstandingly obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Fails WP:NACTOR with only minor roles - does not seem to meet any of the 3 criteria: 1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3 Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as has been so ably pointed out, he doesn't currently meet WP:NACTOR, and searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 TT me 13:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Those in favor of "keep" have made no policy-based arguments showing that the subject meets notability guidelines. Jujutacular (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M. Dawood Khan[edit]

M. Dawood Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The sources mention Khan only in passing, or not at all. The tone is promotional, the content not based on what the sources report about Khan. Huon (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Individual is notable personality in Pakistan and UAE..I suugest to keep it GreenCricket (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - non-notable self promotion article. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don’t see why he is not a notable personality as you say he isn’t. He has been mention in BBC, Financial Times, Times of London & Hindustan Times to name a few international sources, not to mention almost all of Pakistan’s local News Papers and TV Channels have written about him / his company Prime Transport Limited which he owns 100%.

    I am not promoting him but stating the facts, three consecutive Prime Ministers of Pakistan have either favored or opposed him.

    There have been debates on his project and him in National Assembly (Lower House of Representatives) and Senate (Upper Hose), what else will make a man notable then his own countries Parliamentarians discussing about him.

    I have stated just a brief of a long list of articles and discussions that have gone on and on about him and his project. Which I intend to add on in coming days, I say it should stay on and not be deleted as I have much more articles backup to prove my stance. Naeem.ptl (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individual is notable personality in Pakistan and UAE..I suugest to keep it. SDK (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article could be improved, the person is clearly notable, as he has been criticized by the opposition party in the National assembly, so Keep. Martinogk (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the page should be deleted ??? Other lesser notable personality have articles on Wikipedia and Khan has been discussed numerous times in National Assembly & Senate which is backed by number of News Articles.Naeem.ptl (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are either forum boards or "Khan said..." name drops/mentions. Additionally, these sources are stacked, forming a bit of CITEKILL in places, and leaving much of the page unsourced. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because wp:BIO1E - Basically, the entire article hinges on reports that his company got the contract to build London-type cabs. That's not enough to hang an article on. Also, much of the article is unsourced and some of the language is promotional. LaMona (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All articles in the reference are from independent sources on which Khan has no control, all are sourced but one "International News Network” of which I am trying to find the proper link and should have it linked soon, for rest all 14 references are fully back by independent source. Additionally its not a contract given to his company, it’s a system of transport that is initiated by Khan in whole of the country. Naeem.ptl (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naeem.ptl, I have struck your second !vote. You are welcome to comment further on this discussion, but continued "keeps" will do nothing. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based solely on guidelines, searches turn up nothing which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 20:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Tarkan[edit]

DJ Tarkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly obvious case of no better notability and improvement and my searches found nothing better than this so unless better sources are found, I'm not seeing much here and this hasn't changed much since starting in August 2010. Pinging Hasteur. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If these maintenance templates haven't been fixed in over 4 years, that's a indication that there's a lack of notability/interest in this page. This is effectively a vanity-bio and not seeing any real compelling arguments for keeping this. No objection to Userfication/Draftspacing to allow the author/advocate to improve the content. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I removed a large part of this article as a WP:COPYVIO of the subject's own site. The other two references are inaccessible for verification, but I don't see the claims in the article as establishing encyclopaedic notability (and note also DJ Magazine#Top 100 Controversies), and am seeing nothing better. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 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.  Sandstein  07:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated Rite[edit]

Consolidated Rite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a content fork for a term used as a title for a "path of progression." This article is simply an amalgamation of material covered much more extensively in the individual articles on the Rites mentioned. MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep - article is part of a series. If the content needs to be fixed it should be rather than be deleted. I am not an expert in freemasonry, but it looks like the content could be rearranged for readers interested in a more condensed version of these rites. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @DangerDogWest:: I would add, then, that this progression outline is specialized; it is only possible in Masonic groups that are under English jurisdiction. It does not hold for other systems in other countries, because the degrees in this outline do not exist in those jurisdictions or the conferral method is different. For example, US Scottish Rite Rose Croix is not invitational, and the conferral method is different in the two jurisdictions, and the York Rite portion is separate (as it is in England). More tellingly, the only GHit for this term in this context is this article. MSJapan (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - It's correct that much of the article is an amalgamation of material covered much more extensively in the individual articles on the orders and degrees mentioned. However, since the Consolidated Rite seems to be mainly a specific path through the various Masonic orders and degrees available in England and doesn't have its own ritual, it's hard to add any material on its constituent orders and degrees that isn't already covered elsewhere. The way I see it, the Consolidated Rite is a particular way of grouping certain Masonic orders and degrees that also exist elsewhere (a bit like the York Rite in the US). Just another Masonic degree system (see List of Masonic Rites) of which there are many. ImprovementUK (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - However, it does not appear to be an "official" rite so much as a reference to a certain way of going through. Similarly, much work has been invested in creating a "chronological" list of degrees, but that doesn't affect the conferral in any manner. Moreover, I wasn't able to find any references to this, so that is a big issue with respect to GNG as a standalone article, as well as the specificity of it. MSJapan (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is short on references, and google gives me 82 hits on the rite, mainly from its own site. That's not good, I expect 4 figures from real organisations. If anybody can find a link to UGLE that isn't self-referenced by Consolidated Rite, we're good. Otherwise, no notability, and possibly a bogus organisation. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read the disclaimer buried in this site. It starts "This site is for informational purposes only. It does not claim to represent a recognised Masonic body in the United Kingdom or elsewhere." It's not a masonic rite or organisation, it's a website. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It does not really matter whether the subject qualifies as a Masonic "Rite" or not... the important question is whether it is Notable enough (as a topic) for Wikipedia to have a stand-alone article about it. I don't think it is. Both WP:GNG and WP:ORG require that a topic be discussed (in reasonable depth) by reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Such sources simply do not exist. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar - no independent reliable sources. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources, and no other web site links to the reference site. Ahwiv (talk) 23:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Master (order)[edit]

Grand Master (order) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for almost eight years, and unencyclopedic. The article is simply a listing of types of groups that have an officer by this title, and says nothing about the duties of the office (which really aren't explained anywhere, even for well-known groups like the Knights Templar). The utility is therefore very debatable, and is really nothing more than a fluffed-out DICDEF. MSJapan (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - It's not a very good article, there are a lot of groups that use this term and the article does not even begin to cover all of them. Looks like a fork of the Templar articles, but I can't be sure. might need some TNT. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as know it is notable from experience. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu S Warrier[edit]

Vishnu S Warrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is hardly any evidence of notability provided for this person. This article does not provide enough good quality references. The blog/website supposedly authored by this person is also not notable. delete per lack of any WP:RS to support notability. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Said person is one of the popular author and legal educator. He is an expert in the field of Arbitration Law. The Books authored by him are bestsellers (Rank #93, Ref: http://www.amazon.in/Arbitration-Conciliation-Mediation-Vishnu-Warrier/dp/9351435547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445833059&sr=1-1&keywords=vishnu+s+warrier). I am of the opinion that, the page shall be retained.

Books and other articles found published have been found true. Said book titles are also published by reputed publishers. Hence, the page may be retained.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.15.72.34 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. no evidence the published material is actually important. No apparent university position; awards are for being a college chess player. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:36, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Suit That Fits[edit]

A Suit That Fits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be borderline WP:CORP notability at best. Most of the sources are to industry awards that will need to be discussed for their impact on notability. The rest of the sources have to do with startup (crowd)funding, which I think past AfDs have generally agreed doesn't make a company noteworthy. Brianhe (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is something interesting about the awards: they are none of them at all significant. This is typical of coi editors trying to add whatever they can possibly find to make an articles on a completely unimpressive business or person look more impressive. Founding stories like this article's " Warren stayed with a family of tailors who made him a fine woolen suit. On returning to the UK, Warren and David met... " are typical also. This appears to be one of a new ring of paid editors. One or two of the articles they wrote are actually notable enough to rewrite, but not this one. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy later if needed as I'm not seeing much convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Refs are trivial. Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 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. After expansion, the consensus, although slim, is keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Scott (disambiguation)[edit]

Kelly Scott (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hatnote at primary does the trick. See also is lame. Brycehughes (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom and per WP:TWODABS.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a second hatnote at the basename (added) does the trick - the See Also is useful because the pair of names could be confusable. 17:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brycehughes, JohnBlackburne, PamD, this had a third entry which could have been added, a valid entry per MOS:DABMENTION. This now has three valid entries and a see also, which I don't agree is 'lame' but could be confusing. We are here to make it as easy as possible for readers to find information on any name. We have information on WP on 3 Kelly Scotts and also several Scott Kellys. Nothing to be gained from deletion and pages meet WP:DISAMBIGUATION guidelines. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adding a Kelley and a Kelli makes it an okay dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing my !vote to keep due to its expansion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:33, 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. KTC (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz anderson[edit]

Jazz anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC NottNott talk|contrib 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard to find any extra sources other than those already sourced in the article:[8] [9] [10], and yes, they're not looking too good. NottNott talk|contrib 16:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/critical-role-livestreaming-dd
  2. ^ http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/19/dungeons-dragons-vin-diesel-video
  3. ^ http://www.sandiego.org/events/outside-comic-con/geek-and-sundry-at-comic-con.aspx
  4. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4834232/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt
  5. ^ http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WebVideo/CriticalRole
  6. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/vin-diesel-nerding-out-over-dungeons-and-dragons-is-an-amazing-slice-of-internet-a6687521.html
  7. ^ http://moviepilot.com/posts/3600528
  8. ^ http://theybf.com/2013/10/17/exclusive-sneak-peek-tami-romans-daughter-jazzs-super-17th-birthday-party-on-david-tutera
  9. ^ http://bossip.com/763083/celebrity-seeds-tami-roman-and-kenny-andersons-lil-rapper-daughter-jazz-anderson-drops-a-new-jawn-turn-up-bangin-on-things/
  10. ^ http://freddyo.com/photos-tami-romans-daughter-graduates-with-honor/
  • Comment The person most interested in defending this article doesn't understand how to do this because I believe they are (somewhat) attempting to do that on their talk page. But they will probably just end up leaving wikipedia. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MurderByDeadcopy: I've attempted to help the user understand this on his/her talk page, but you're totally right - this isn't the best way to introduce someone to editing. NottNott talk|contrib 16:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has got to be the worst welcome to Wikipedia ever. The talk page hadn't even been patrolled yet. No matter what I think about this article doing this comes across as callous. (Unless, of course, there's a blatant issue with an article!) Seems like one should check to see who started the article and at least welcome them to wikipedia before nominating their article to AfD. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MurderByDeadcopy: Noted. My intention was never to scare away the editor - and while patrolling Huggle at a fast speed you can be prone to forget basic etiquette like that. I've taken steps that will hopefully rectify the situation, but this is a fault. NottNott talk|contrib 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:GNG. I would suggest Userfy, but that would only encourage a new editor to work on an article which has very little chance of acceptance. Onel5969 TT me 13:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Krasnyansky[edit]

Anatole Krasnyansky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is an advert, without third-party reliable sources. Though it was claimed in 2008 that Anatole Krasnyansky "is a widely-known and collected artist," there does not seem much to substantiate this. A search on Google gives 217 hits when you go to the last page. Most of these hits are from people trying to sell his artwork. The rest are for a different possibly more-notable artist of the same name who lived 1924-2004. Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are you sure that you are referring to two different artists? Because I believe they are the same person and this should be a Speedy Keep. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 16:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Un-bold 'speedy keep' editor made a 'keep' !vote below. JbhTalk 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to be sure of anything with non-notable artists.
  • Anatole Krasnyansky is claimed by "Invaluable" (an auction house) to have been born in 1930 and still be alive.
  • Anatole Krasnyansky is claimed by Palm Beach Fine Art to have lived 1924-2004.
The style of art is identical, so it is possible that they are the same person; or that the art galleries have muddled two different artists. I have no idea. But if either of them were notable, there ought to be reliable sources other than companies trying to sell his products. So where is the coverage in reliable sources? Wikipedia:Notability says: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The subject of the article appears to fail this test. However, if you know different, please provide sources and put them in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not a single RS pertaining to the subject.Lute88 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find a lot of passing mentions of his work but nothing about him. I will look in some of my old art books to see if I can find anything on him. None of his works are on WikiArt for whatever that is worth. JbhTalk 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Useless. I have a few compendia of Ukrainian painters. There is nothing.Lute88 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't they be more likely to listed under Russian and not Ukrainian since they left in 1975? --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 18:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of the sort either. Moreover, the article had claims of film credits which were credited to entirely different people on IMDB.Lute88 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is IMDB considered to be a reliable source? Moreover your book is Ukrainian painters. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no SOVIET painter by that name either. The cyrillic search produces nothing at all. As to IMD, it is reliable for production credits. The article had patently false claims of AK's film credits.Lute88 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find nothing that passes muster. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE JbhTalk 18:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a mix-up with a dad/son? Is one the surreal painter and the other one a scenic artist? Someone made a book of their work and gave that to the Hermitage. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nope. There is only one, and a search in Ukrainian brings nothing at all - [8]
Same in Russian - [9]

Lute88 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Toddy1: Just wondering: why was it me who was notified of the article's being nominated for deletion? My only edit to the page was nominating it for speedy deletion, and that was more than seven years ago. I didn't create the page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notified the first two people to make edits to the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Krasnyansky is listed in the book, Ukrainian Art: Shevchenko National Prize[10]. He was featured with Chagall[11]. In an art fraud case, his name gets mentioned along with Dali, Rembrandt, Erte, and Max.[12] Also, his serigraphs are valued super high ($2,350)[13] for a "nobody"! Also, another one for $10,000[14], a write up in the Malibu Chronicle [15] AND the is no one named Anatole Kranyansky with the birth date of 1924-2008. That info is a false lead to this AfD. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 09:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding it's high for a serigraph, ie a mass limited edition silkscreen print. And Lute88 appears to only have some issue with him because Krasnyansky is being classified as Ukrainian. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. Secondly - the Barneby is an ESTIMATE, not a record of sale for that price. And there is no indication the item has ever had a bidder.--Lute88 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the proper characterization of Lute88's "issue" is "There is not a single RS pertaining to the subject.". Trying to discount another editor's opinion on nationalist grounds is more than a bit distasteful and you should consider striking that accusation. There is no need for comments like that here. JbhTalk 18:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. I pointed that out for full transparency. And, to be fair, they are not the only ones here with that bias. I'm already aware of exactly what you are going to with this article, right or wrong! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any bias here, and your inference thereof is insulting.Lute88 (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- He is not featured in that book. He is listed in keywords that contain a lot of people and entities that are not the recipients of the prize.Lute88 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And he is not on the list of recipients - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shevchenko_National_Prize_laureates. And you missed this tidbit: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.")))Lute88 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Lute88 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The source you site to say he is " mentioned along with Dali, Rembrandt, Erte, and Max." says simply "two by Ukrainian-American artist Anatole Krasnyansky" which means nothing. Where and how is he mentioned in Ukrainian Art: Shevchenko National Prize the only thing that link says is the two words of his name exist somewhere in that book, no context and not even necessarily occurring together. I do not know where you get "featured with Chagall" from, the book you link is a gallery index. These arguments are even weaker than WP:NOTINHERITED maybe WP:NOTMENTIONEDINTHESAMESENTENCE. Also $2,230 is not "super high" it is 'peanuts' if you are trying to claim he is anywhere near Dali, Rembrandt, Erte, Max and Chagall. I am rather impressed in how you framed a 'passing mention' in one article and two Google Books returns, without any text, to make this guy seem to be a 'great artist' but he is not. If he were there would be something on him somewhere. Imaginative framing does not demonstrate notability.

I have collapsed the super long url's above by enclosing them in '[]'. JbhTalk 15:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "book" is wiki-derived.Lute88 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citogenesis. JbhTalk 15:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, again, Jbhunley, ironic that the editors of that article choose to use three refs and a wikilink to "prove" that Randall Munroe coined the term "citogenesis". Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 17:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub - Highbeam.com lists six articles about Krasnyansky. The article is poorly written but we can fix it using paywalled references. The Wikipedia Library is going to open up a few more paywalls for me within the next couple of weeks. It is premature to delete this article without doing WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE first. These are POLICIES that are NOT optional. JSTOR.com has nothing. Roll up your sleeves, apply for some paywall databases and start recovering articles instead of deleting them. Put this one on the back burner until then, or withdraw the deletion nomination as should be. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the articles listed on highbeam.com three are about a case of fraud and theft involving his paintings. One is advertising an auction. Another is about someone buying at a sale of art. I am not sure what the one from the Rocky Mountain News is about. None of them are about Anatole Krasnyansky.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Checkingfax: You did notice that of those six Highbeam hits three only said two of his paintings were part of a fraud case and nothing more, one says a piece was "valued at $2,350" and nothing more, one is a one line comment from someone who bought a painting at an auction and one says "Two of his favorite pieces of art are colorful, surrealistic paintings by Anatole Krasnyansky, a Russian artist who lives in the United States." [16] and nothing more. Right? Nothing more than four passing mentions in six articles. I would suggest you do a BEFORE that consists of more than counting 'hits' before you scold others about their research. Just say'n. Cheers. JbhTalk 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The flow is: notice article >>> try to fix it >>> if unfixable then nominate for deletion. Starting with AfD and then trying to fix it is against POLICY. We are supposed to reference POLICY only in our discussions here.
Now that the article is improperly in the AfD queue it puts an unreasonable deadline on trying to fix the article. I need about three weeks to try to bring this article up to better standards. In the meantime, I suggest all editors get over to TWL and apply for some paywall database access codes, and that the nominating editor withdraw this nomination. The fact that artists could counterfeit his work and make money suggests he is a notable artist in the league of the other few artists that were also copied. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base your claim that artists counterfeited his work? In the fraud case, someone claimed that the paintings were stolen and then tried to sell them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, EBSCO, and ProQuest turned up only brief mentions in the routine course of business (e.g. "Also included in the auction will be works by Anatole Krasnyansky"). Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources has not been found, so does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC. No objection to draftify/userfication if Checkingfax thinks they can rescue the topic, but it's been tagged for notability off and on ever since it was created in 2008 (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jul 2#Park West Gallery: our article vs. The New York Times.27 makes interesting reading); so far no one has found the requisite sources. Worldbruce (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Giamani[edit]

Leo Giamani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requested by subject of article Amortias (T)(C) 13:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is borderline at best. If the subject wants this article deleted, let's defer to the subject's wishes. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I see nothing better here. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. "Best Web Performer: is a bottom-tier, insignificant award; like webcomics and self-published books, more is required than notoriety internal to that insular field. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:25, 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constance M. Rockosi[edit]

Constance M. Rockosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. She is only doing her job. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear case of nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE. Why would you have nominated this within hours of creation without doing a modicum of checking on notability? Noted scientist, one of the heads of The Sloan Digital Sky Survey [17] who has been cited as an expert numerous times by others in her field. [18], with a string of publications [19] and she is "chair" of her department [20]. Not only does she meet ACADEMIC she clearly meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 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 keep. Nom withdrawn and no other deletion opinions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence (2015 video game)[edit]

Prominence (2015 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. An upcoming science fiction point and click adventure game with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Keep Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. Zeneater (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep - I already see coverage in reliable sources being used in refs (at least from PCGamer), and there's not reason to believe this won't get more coverage and reviews once released later this week. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Prominence was community-voted to be Steam Greenlit and recently appeared in at least two popular sites: PC Gamer[1] and IndieGames.com[2] (a Gamasutra sister-site). Also recently on some smaller sites.[3][4] There are older references, such as a 2007 Engadget[5] and several for their 2013 Greenlight blitz, some including demo reviews (Google translations given when possible).[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. A preview article also appeared in print in issue 283 of a French 2013 gaming magazine, Canard PC.[18][19] (NOTE: I'm the Wiki article creator and got many references from the Prominence Facebook page) Zeneater (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The successful greenlit game seems a measure of notability to consider. See: "FAQ: How many votes does a game need to get selected?" If additional notability beyond what is already cited is required, it is reasonable to expect more articles and reviews will surface once the game is released to the public. Ratsiva (talk) 18:48, 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 delete a11, made up by article author. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skovaji[edit]

Skovaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious Hoax Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator has a history of this, both under his current incarnation of RailwayScientist and earlier as Mistoop. See also the article Skovajan language. There are a number of uploaded files and related edits that will need to be dealt with as well. Emeraude (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hoax, just kids playing. They have an entry in MicroWiki here and that's fine, but this isn't encyclopedia material. The link to their official website doesn't work. Jyl (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- whether hoax or not, definitely not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 14:07, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn.

Aquarius Tour[edit]

Aquarius Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:NCONCERT TOUR and WP:GNG. It lack the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely sure as I'm not feeling strongly about deletion as this is at least sourced but also may not be keepable considering its future. BTW Wikicology I wouldn't have nominated the article so fast especially considering its neat and sourced state as this may affect the author's understanding of making Wikipedia articles. 07:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, I'm going to close the discussion as soon as I'm done with adding the sources I found through a diligent search. I think we can Keep this one. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Nomination withdrawn I withdraw my nomination to Keep per the reliable sources I added to the article, therefore closing this debate. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rihi[edit]

Rihi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist that lacks coverage from outside independent sources that establishes their notability. Also see [21] Wisdom89 (T / C) 10:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 10:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 10:04, 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Goodwin Raheja[edit]

Gloria Goodwin Raheja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. She is an academic that is doing her job Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to gscholar, both books mentioned in the article have received about 500 cites each (532 and 466, respectively), which is quite something. Notability would need to be established via independent sources, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's widely published, widely cited and was a Chair at University of Minnesota. I've added more sources that should help prove notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citations are unquestionably enough to meet WP:PROF, and theb ooks important enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Thisshould not have been nominated for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Nomination withdrawn the sources provided through the effort of Megalibrarygirl established the subject notability. Thus, withdraw my nomination to Keep the article. Many thanks to Megalibrarygirl. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:43, 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. KTC (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel fernandes (comedian)[edit]

Daniel fernandes (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I can't find any evidence of notability perhaps, WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Dismas|(talk) 13:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging tagger WilliamThweatt. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any "significant coverage" and I gave it some time for the creator to find sources before !voting, but, after reviewing the article again just now, I still think it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The supposed claim to notability is as a comic, but the first three sources are just mentions of him as some guy hosting some event, nothing notable. The only other reference is to a performance at one-off regional "comedy festival", again, nothing significant or notable.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current references and the search engines did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet the notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 13:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkin Comics[edit]

Arkin Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. clpo13(talk) 09:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banimon[edit]

Banimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. clpo13(talk) 09:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. zero evidence of notability. WP:PROD was removed, forcing it here. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I simply see nothing better and there's has been any change since starting in July 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado River Log[edit]

Colorado River Log (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. clpo13(talk) 09:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and see this list of "contributions"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not finding anything at all in the way of secondary source coverage. Echo concerns raised by Hoary, above. — Cirt (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:33, 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.  Sandstein  07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 65th Miss Universe Pageant[edit]

The 65th Miss Universe Pageant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, no reliable sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 07:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just an attempt to recreate Miss Universe 2016, which has been redirected and protected. Violates WP:CRYSTAL with no confirmed date, no confirmed venue and no reliable source coverage. Implausible title for a redirect. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:59, 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) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KF Çakrani[edit]

KF Çakrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Article has no references to indicate notability, only two external links which do not provide in-depth coverage. KDS4444Talk 07:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per WP:FOOTYN having played in the Albanian second division they have played in a national competition. Needs improving g not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that WP:FOOTYN is meant to provide editors with a handy guide to quickly assess whether or not a given football-related subject is likely to be notable— it doesn't supersede WP:GNG which still asks for references when someone calls for them, even for subjects that appear to meet WP:FOOTYN (or any other topic-specific guideline). The Albanian Wikipedia entry has the same quality and number of references as the English one, which to me merely proves the club exists, whatever its divisional ranking. KDS4444Talk 06:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 11:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RSSSF records the following instances of the club participating in either the third tier of Albanian football (not the seocnd as the article claims) or in the national cup competition although, as is common with many clubs, there is a bit of difficulty searching easily because often the diacritics are not included in English language sources, being referred to as "Cakrani". They have competed in at least four seasons of third tier football and participated in the national cup in each of those seasons, reaching the second round in 2006. Per the general consensus achieved through AfD, this seems sufficient for me. Fenix down (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Played in a national cup Spiderone 08:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having played in a national cup means the club passes WP:FOOTYN. Research and translation to improve the article are required. I'd also like to point out to KDS4444 that WP:NFOOTY is also "a handy guide to quickly assess whether or not a given football-related subject is likely to be notable" and also does not supersede WP:GNG; plenty of articles on footballers who barely meet NFOOTY have been deleted because they did not build upon that to reach GNG. — Jkudlick tcs 12:19, 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.
Interesting— my experience has been the exact opposite: that a player whose Wikipedia entry consists of nothing more than an infbox of his stats and a single external reference to the Internet page those stats come from and nothing more is basically untouchable. If you need examples of these, I can show you about 8,000. KDS4444Talk 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Run Cactus Kid Run[edit]

Run Cactus Kid Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most adverts that have Wiki pages out there are notable in its own right but the only form of notability out there for this quickly forgotten TV commercial is the successful complaints (by 11 people) leveled against it (the section which I added in myself years ago) and hardly anything else, not forgetting that it is blatantly created by a WP:SPA WP:COI user. Also, as I am not an admin, I don't know if this advert has anything to do with the previously deleted version seen here. Donnie Park (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertisement-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - other than a couple of trivial list mentions in Books, absolutely nothing else on the other searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the refs are 404 pages apart from 3 which are news stating the advert was banned. Szzuk (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:30, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Residential colleges of Griffith University[edit]

Residential colleges of Griffith University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I dont think these colloges are indivuually notable (content is university prospectus material), nor do I think that its a useful redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are plenty of sources on the vast amount of residential colleges at long-standing universities (I can't think of one I couldn't off the top of my head), and it's not like they've gone for articles on individual halls, which could get more borderline. This should have been given an unsourced tag rather than being nominated for deletion - it needs referencing but it's pretty obvious the sources are there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to support this deletion but then I noticed other similar pages and that it would clutter the main uni page. It should be kept as long references can be found. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The above argument is of course WP:OTHERSTUFF and is an argument for the mentioned paged to be at AfD rather than for keeping this opne. As for the other "Keep", of cource there will be sources mentioning these halls of residence; this does not mean that they are notable independenly of the university. I also do not see enough content in the article as it stands to create much of a problem for the page on the university. Basically dormcruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, all the content of this article is already in the (grossly underreferenced) article on the uni.TheLongTone (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing in the article to suggest that any of these are independently notable. A condensed entry on the university's article would be sufficient. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we have precedent that, as a general rule, residential colleges of Australian universities are by that fact notable. The existence of the category Category:Residential colleges of Australian universities and the number of articles in that category (I count 61) is a demonstration of this precedent. Given that precedent, I would submit this article is notable. I should note that, in the Australian context, university residential colleges may be in a somewhat different category than say dormitory halls in the US. In many (but not all cases), they are legally distinct corporate bodies from the university, generally under control of trustees at least partially independent of the university administration (in some cases, the boards of trustees include representatives of both the affiliated university and of a sponsoring religious body), often (but not always) affiliated with a religious denomination, often in some sort of affiliation relationship with the university rather than being formally part of it. In NSW, a number of the older university colleges of the University of Sydney were established under Acts of Parliament (see e.g. St Paul's College, University of Sydney, established by the SAINT PAUL'S COLLEGE ACT 1854, likewise St John's College, University of Sydney established by SAINT JOHN'S COLLEGE ACT 1857, St Andrew's College, University of Sydney established under SAINT ANDREW'S COLLEGE ACT 1998, Sancta Sophia College, University of Sydney (SANCTA SOPHIA COLLEGE INCORPORATION ACT 1929). In NSW, see also the Universities and Colleges Lands Acts of 1924, 1957, 1966 and 1967. In Western Australia, university colleges are established under the UNIVERSITY COLLEGES ACT 1926. So, given the distinctive situation that university residential colleges operate under in Australia, I would suggest that many or most or all of them are notable, even if superficially similar institutions in other countries are judged not to be. SJK (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did not mention the Wesley College Incorporation Act 1910 (NSW), Women's College Act 1902 (NSW), and in Victoria: the Trinity College Acts 1927,1957,1979, the University Colleges Lands Act 1960, and the Janet Clarke Hall Act 1961, and the Queen's College Land Act 1962. My point is, if a body has an Act of Parliament passed named after it, then it arguably is by that fact (among others) notable enough for Wikipedia. And if that is true for a number of members of a class of bodies, that fact in turn suggests that other members of that class (for whom that fact does not themselves hold) are also notable. SJK (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some halls of residence are notable does not mean that all are. As for the acts of parliament, I imagine that these were simply enabling acts rather than significant legislation.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zonal Welfare Council[edit]

Zonal Welfare Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. All the references are primary sources, or directory listings. No mentions in books, journals, news articles or other reliable sources. utcursch | talk 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - It's certainly a noble cause but I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm sure it does great work but lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Kipa[edit]

Ming Kipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any long-term notability with someone who was the youngest person to client Everest for a brief period of time. She was the holder of this record for seven years but I don't see how every person who held this record would be sufficiently notable for a separate article. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to destroy the article on children like this. She deserves a fair chance and we need to counter systemic bias here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.98 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep find it amazingly shocking that even for a moment this should be considered for deletion! Surely the deletionists have indeed taken over and are running the show. Mathmo Talk 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No objection to the American who won but clearly a problem when a young Nepalese woman accomplishes something. For shame. 166.170.49.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These type of articles should be merged into an article titled (along the lines of) Youngest Mount Everest climbers record. There does already exist an article on List of Mount Everest records. Having independent articles for these youngest climbers doesn't match the notability guidelines (if that's all that they have ever been known for).--MarshalN20 Talk 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak - mainly because there isn't much to say beyond the four sentences here, so it's not much of an article. However, the list of records just gives a name, and doesn't allow for even those four sentences. A combined article about the young climbers would be a good idea, and when someone decides to create that, they can then redirect from this. That said, I am dismayed at the accusations of bias on the part of some commenters here. Please assume good faith. This article is minimal so it does make sense to bring it to AfD. LaMona (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first three keep !votes do not provide guideline- or policy-based rationales for article retention. North America1000 06:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demand Readiness Level[edit]

Demand Readiness Level (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by a single-purpose editor, who has stated that he or she created it "on behalf of the author of the concept". There is no evidence that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Both of the two references in the article are works by Florin Paun, the creator of the concept of "Demand Readiness Level", and so of no use in establishing notability. I looked for sources myself. Of the first twenty Google hits for "Demand Readiness Level", one was this Wikipedia article, 15 were works by Florin Paun, and the other four merely mentioned "Demand Readiness Level" briefly in passing, without giving any substantial coverage of the subject.

Normally, for an article for which neither the cited references nor an online search produces any evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines, that would be an end of the matter. In this case, however, there is also a list of 44 "sources" which are not cited in the article. At first glance it seemed that it would be very difficult to see whether these gave significant evidence of notability, as only a minority of them are available online. However, looking more closely, it is clear that half of them cannot be of any value in establishing notability of "Demand Readiness Level", as they date from before 2007, the year in which the article states that the concept was "created". (The earliest is dated 1914.) Of those which do date from later than 2007, about half are authored or co-authored by Florin Paun. One is a blog post. I have searched for information about many of the others, and for some of them I have managed to find abstracts, reviews, publishers' blurbs, or other indications of their contents; in none of those cases did I find any mention of "Demand Readiness Level". Of course, that does not guarantee that the works in question don't contain some mention of the subject, but it does suggest at least that the subject is not a major topic in those works. There is also the fact that some of the works do not seem to have much prominence: for one of them I was unable to find any mention of it anywhere except for this Wikipedia article. I am not sure what the author of the article means by "sources", but in view of the large proportion of them which date from before 2007, and the lack of prominence of "Demand Readiness Level" in anything which I have been able to find about the others, it seems likely that in this context "sources" may mean something like "any publications which have any connection at all to the subject of the article, even if they don't mention it as such." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is clear that this article can be deleted as a neologism. I take the sources the be a bibliography on the background of the topic, as might appear in a journal article, and not in direct support of the WP article. In fact, I do find some of them in the Springer article. LaMona (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as per above. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clear Delete - nothing to show its notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Heroes[edit]

Sports Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - MrX 12:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - not because I don't think it should be deleted, but simply because of the commonality of the expression which is the name of this product. I might have missed something in the search engines, but does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Listen[edit]

Indigo Listen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches simply found nothing at all with the best being some of the same links here so unless there's better archived and otherwise unaccessible sourcing, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Unfortunately all of the taggers are not considerably active so there's no one to ping but this has existed since September 2008 with no much change. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like it was written by a band member or a drinking buddy thereof. Clearly not a notable band -- no RS, no claim to recording, and the article itself calls the few significant gigs as "unlikely." LaMona (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 I would appreciate it if you commented as so a clearer consensus can be made (this seems like a clear delete but more than one comment would be useful). SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I didn't get a single hit on any of the search engines. Onel5969 TT me 12:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find them anywhere on the internet. Szzuk (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted G5 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Tonga[edit]

Miss Earth Tonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I simply found nothing better to suggest better improvement or even to fully confirm it exists aside from this. Notifying tagger Lantay77 and author Yuliaalipova. SwisterTwister talk 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 12:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 12:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several results can be found through searches for the individuals in the article combined with Miss Tonga, so it's not a hoax. It's unclear, though, whether these are significant and independent sources, so WP:N concerns may remain. Calamondin12 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Created as block evasion by sock puppet of Colombiabeauty. Tagged for G5 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Weston (politician)[edit]

Paul Weston (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article on a minor racist, leader of an insignificant far-right party in the UK, who achieved brief but transient notoriety after he was arrested once. The sources almost all discuss the party not Weston, and there is zero chance of his ever being elected tot he office he apparently craves. If he has a claim to fame it's that Breivik mentioned his blog posts - but Breivik mentioned all kinds of whacknut nonsense so I don't really think that qualifies as a claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I do not follow British politics, but I have heard about his actions as far away as Ukraine back then. So notable and influential.Zezen (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I live in the UK (where he is supposedly so influential) and I have never heard of him at all, ever. Even his party is of doubtful notability. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Leader of signiicant far/extreme right political party in UK, albeit one with no chance of political success electorally. If you live in the UK and have never heard of him, I suggest you are reading the wrong publications, given that at least seven different media outlets are quoted in the article, including BBC News, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent! Emeraude (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant? Not hardly. This is a barely known bigot whose name is a very long way from being a household word in England, and whose party itself is virtually unknown, being covered mainly in colour pieces on the lunatic fringe, alongside the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Those sources are not about him, they are about his fringe party. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Significant within the far right most certainly. Read the article given as sources (and find more). Being a bigot does not preclude being included in Wikipedia. And, of course, the Monster Raving Loony Party and its leaders, Screaming Lord Sutch and Howling Laud Hope, have articles. Emeraude (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has received sufficient coverage over the years and not just for one event. Fences&Windows 16:48, 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. KTC (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Suede[edit]

AJ Suede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mishka, a record label on which AJ Suede released his album [22], and Rad Reef, a collective with which AJ Suede collaborated on a series of the cypher videos [23], are not independent of the subject. Other sources cited in the article such as shinyglasshouses.com, nvrmndus.wordpress.com, and 1833.fm, are self-published sources. 153.228.98.244 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this seems obvious and I'm not even familiar with any of those listed websites (????). SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches did not turn up enough coverage to show it passes notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazungul Saga[edit]

Kazungul Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK for lack of available sources. - MrX 12:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:45, 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 03:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Tolan[edit]

Miriam Tolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What a bloody waste of time. Clearly non-notable actress: why User:Appable keeps removing my speedy tags is a total mystery. I assume good faith, but am baffled. TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable actress, can't find any reliable sources that go into depth or focus on her as a subject. Regarding speedy deletion: WP:A7 mandates no credible claim of significance which is a lower standard than notability, and is therefore not the appropriate deletion process in this case. Actress played a role in notable film, so has claim to significance, but not notable herself. Appable (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while Tolan does not meet WP:GNG with a season at Second City[24] and a season on the Daily Show[25] she meets WP:ENT #1. Will update the article later today. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. I found some sources that mention her, but they do not appear to provide significant coverage. WP:ENT is an extension of WP:BASIC, in that WP:ENT can be used to determine possible notability, but WP:ENT alone does not determine it. After WP:BASIC is evaluated and determined to be met, can WP:ENT be used to further determine notability (remember that notability requires verifiable evidence per WP:V). This does not appear to be the case, as this person fails both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tolan meets notability criteria given her work on stage at Second City, on TV in the Daily Show and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, and in movies such as The Heat, The Dictator and Martin & Orloff. Gfcvoice (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If she is notable, why has it not ben possible to come up with any reference ie evidence of anybody actually taking notice of her???? It's not as though the media are not the subject of coverage of even the most evaescent and trivial event.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the sources I cited above, see [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30] --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel J. Howard, the sources you provided above and in your voting statement don't appear to fully assert that this person meets WP:ENT. The sources you provided here and here are reviews that mention the person. The book you provided mentions the person only four times, and doesn't seem to assert her significance in a major television show or movie. The only source that you provided that I felt had some weight was this, but playing a role for one out of sixteen seasons doesn't strike me as playing a "significant role" in WP:ENT. I like that you did some in-depth searching, but I'm still not convinced that this person meets WP:ENT as you stated. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as a compromise as I simply see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Joo Guan[edit]

Kim Joo Guan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and easily speedy and PROD material as my searches simply found nothing better than this and thisand searches at The Business Times, Straits Times, Today and The New Paper and this simply hasn't changed much since starting in January 2010. Pinging the only still active tagger Magioladitis. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too found reliable sources lacking for the company and I concur that the article fails to meet notability standards. The food for which the company is reported to be a provider is covered by the article Bakkwa and I don't see the added value in this particular stub of a company profile. Given the paucity of sources, it seems unlikely that the article can be rescued and I note it has languished in its current state for five years. Geoff | Who, me? 20:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not reveal enough to show the article meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:46, 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 merge to Sacred Name Movement. I will leave it up to whoever does the merge to figure out which, and how much, material should be moved. In any case, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly of Yahweh[edit]

Assembly of Yahweh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and may simply be best known through the Sacred Name Movement and in that case should simply be mentioned there (which it is but can maybe be expanded a little more) because my searches simply found nothing better than here and here and this hasn't changed much since starting in July 2008. Pinging author Johnpacklambert. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Repeatedly mentioned in encyclopedias of religion, new religious movements, and the like. It therefore makes sense that it has an encyclopedia entry here.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 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. KTC (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Telecom[edit]

Clay Telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found here, here, here and here. This also hasn't changed much since starting in July 2010. Pinging WhisperToMe, Lor and Ronz, Peridon, HJ Mitchell and author Ajay.KV. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Not really sure what to think of it, seems like a lack of WP:GNG, but i'm not completely sure. i'm also wondering why i got pinged here, as i only made a semi-automated edit which was in slight error. LorTalk 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still think it's spam... References are not reliable independent sources, and it doesn't show notability. Only that they 'offer' things... Peridon (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor(s?) paid by Clay Telecom to edit the article have failed to find any secondary sources after all these years. Maybe this discussion will get someone to look one more time. A WP:COIN discussion should probably be started regardless of the outcome here. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging interested subject users Yash!, AKS.9955, SpacemanSpiff and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Company not notable. One source is a PR release, one press release and third is Linkedin profile. Just another company doing regular business. Article appears to be advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like spam. The article is clearly an advert and I am not able to find sources for the claims made. The best I could find were this and this. The former talks about the company with a promotional tone while the latter is a press release. Yash! 04:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 15:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Martel[edit]

Diane Martel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This would seem like a keep here but there's not much else to suggest better notability and improvement with my best search results here, here, here and here and she's called a "veteran....and prominent" but I'm still not entirely sure if this is keepable. It also seems that at this (occurs for several months in early 2007) and I'm not sure if this was her as well (if so, it's the first one in January 2007) and finally this seems to suggest the subject herself was removing what was apparently not accurate information. I literally went through the history searching for any pingable users to the start in July 2005 and the only one seemed to be Jeandré du Toit. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll likely come around soon but I'll give Onel5969 an early notice as I hope to get some consensus here. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - While the current article is so poorly sourced I can't believe it hasn't been proposed prior to this, this video director clearly passes WP:BASIC, and most likely passes WP:GNG. She is spoken of in so many articles about the music video industry, and her involvement in some controversy over a Robin Thicke video (which I found on this search), amped up her public exposure. This search, while not giving many in-depth articles, gives dozens of mentions, and several in-depth interviews, which have excellent leads going to her notability, such as this, this, and this. And those are only the examples from the first page. I didn't go beyond the 500th article, but she's mentioned, many time prominently in all of them. On Books she gets mentions in over 150 books. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 01:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Armond Powell[edit]

Gerard Armond Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and improvable as I simply found nothing better than some links here and this simply hasn't changed much since starting in September 2007. Pinging taggers Melcous, Conquistador2k6 and Dthomsen8. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 01:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rehane Yavar Dhala[edit]

Rehane Yavar Dhala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and improvable even though all my searches here, here, here, here and here which all speak well of her but there's simply not much here suggesting this may not have adequate improvement. Unfortunately several of the taggers are no longer considerably active aside from Phil Bridger and Fastily. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unopposed.  Sandstein  07:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ambisonic Source Texts[edit]

List of Ambisonic Source Texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously prodded, but rejected because "someone spent a lot of work on this". Doesn't address the question of notability. None of the source texts seem to be a notable work in its own right, and "ambisonic source texts" is hardly a topic that has received much attention as a group. While we have some bibliographies for very notable, large subjects, we normally don't have separate bibliographies for the majority of subjects. (If kept, the article needs to be moved to "List of Ambisonic source texts", but that can wait until after the AfD) Fram (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm personally not a strong advocate for the bibliographies of even large topics, but there's especially little to justify such a list for a specific implementation of surround sound; functionally, relevant material in these sources should be used to improve the parent article and cited therein (if not already). Sources that don't contribute to referencing can be ignored, or, if they are for some other reason particularly notable, included as further reading. But not as a stand-alone list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 18:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aris B.C. Games[edit]

Aris B.C. Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any reason for listing a record of some clubs games. This is firmly in WP:NOTDIR territory. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  16:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  16:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  16:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't a sports directory of trivial information. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete it - either keep it or merge it with the main article If some people have a problem with it, just merge it with the main article. But don't delete the pertinent info for no reason.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:23, 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 merge to Worldwatch Institute. Consensus seemed to be to keep the content, but not enough for it's own article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nourishing the Planet[edit]

Nourishing the Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure advocacy, part of a promotional campaign with articles on the founder and on allied organizations. The notability doesn't hold up either: The NYT source given mentions neither her nor the organization, and refs to the other papers are to her own columns in them. The refs to the cities are to press releases, labelled as such. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Danielle Nierenberg or at least mention at a related article as my searches of "Nourishing the Planet Danielle Nierenberg" found several links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but there's unlikely separate improvement here. Pinging past taggers Robofish and Mschiffler. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Worldwatch Institute. The project doesn't seem hugely notable in its own right, but I think coverage of it in the organisation's page would be appropriate, and more so than redirecting to the article on its director. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Worldwatch Institute, for same reasons as stated by nominator and Robofish. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 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 03:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Grocers Association[edit]

Minnesota Grocers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Non-encyclopedic content and tone. Clear issues with WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY which have been flagged for 4+ years without improvement. Nsteffel (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in any case as it would seem acceptable at first but there's no simply no signs of improvement. The name found several links at News, Books, browser, Highbeam and Newspapers Archive but nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It would be a shame to lose it since it covers a lot of history. I found a small number of links in a books search. Including an article in Mother Jones magazine [31] and another on the fight against big tobacco [32]. It's not a huge amount, and it won't cover the historical information which probably only comes from the ass'n itself. I think there's a story there if someone will take it on. However, it may take a fair amount of research. LaMona (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with SwisterTwister. It does seem a shame to delete an article about such an old organization but there's no in-depth coverage that can be found. It's possible it exists offline in old news coverage, but we'd need some indication of this. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though relisted several times No significant sources Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- KTC (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Dubois[edit]

Larissa Dubois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:MUSICIAN. While this doesn't factor into deletion, the creator of the article is "GypsyDiva," which coincidentally also happens to be the name of Dubois' record label. Missvain (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an owner and I am not an employee of Gypsy Diva Records. I am a fan of Larissa Dubois. Singer Larissa Dubois calls all of her fans Gypsy Diva, Gypsy Divas & Gypsy Soldiers, that is the reason I picked that username, I am a fan. I am not a record label. Why you would target to delete this page because I chose a username as a fan name is not a valid reason for deletion. Numerous moderators have reviewed and edited the page based on merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydiva (talk • contribs)
Nom has specifically stated your username's reference "doesn't factor into deletion", only as a FYI kind of thing. Instead of getting all defensive over the wrong thing, why not actually provide/look for substantial reliable independent sources to satisfy inclusion conditions set out in either WP:NMUSIC or the more general WP:GNG? And for your information, even if "moderators" have substantially edited the article it can still be deleted based on solid non-notable grounds, not to mention so far only you, Sophia49 (talk · contribs) and a 98.* IP made any substantial content changes that is more than cursory maintenance. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you User:Hisashiyarouin I'm a newbie. The advice is noted and appreciated any help would be welcomed.Gypsydiva (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI User:GypsyDiva has once more left a similar, slightly expanded, version of her comment above on the talk page for this deletion discussion. I'm not going to move it here, but, just an FYI: see here. Missvain (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Several verifiable WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN were provided as references before Nom. All third party Reliable Independent Sources were provided and linked before Nom requested deletion. I expanded on the Reliable Independent Sources provided and have met the WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG guidelines as established by Wikipedia. Some reference examples are as follows: (First source): SingersRoom April 6, 2015 "Discovered: Larissa Dubois This Is Love." Article written by the founder,creator, and editor of the Soul Train award winning R&B/Soul music news outlet. (Second souce): A UK (United Kingdom) online music media outlet SoulTracks founder,creator, and editor wrote an Soul Music article/review of Larissa Dubois's EP "This Is Love." The article is quoted as saying "She has the skills that remind us of some of the great female singers of the past two decades.”
A simple search on Google would have proven she has received verifiable and reliable indepedent articles in the media online as a musician after SingersRoom announced her as "Discovered" in the music industry.
All Independent Reliable Sources were referenced/cited on the Larissa Dubois Wikipedia page when created.Gypsydiva (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not knowledgeable about this area of music, but I looked at the sources and I don't know if any of them meet the wp:rs guidelines. Some are obviously blogs (kelandmelreviews), some take blog-like content from contributors (face2face), others seem to be music promotion sites with unclear editorial oversight. The one that does seem like a possible RS is SoulTracks. Then there are links to performance notices, which don't confer notability. I'd like it if someone can give more information on the sources and their reliability. LaMona (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 05:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a couple of brief mentions on News, nothing on any of the other search engines. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:59, 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. The arguments for keeping are such things as: two published books (whether they are self-published or not, the mere fact of having published a couple of books does not confer notability); mention in a local newspaper; there are other articles on subjects less notable (see WP:OTHERSTUFF); he has exhibited with other notable artists (see WP:NOTINHERITED; "The sources cited seem notable enough to keep" with no explanation why (see WP:ASSERTN); "I ... feel passionately about the issue" (see WP:ILIKEIT). Not one of them actually provides reasons for keeping in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have rarely seen a deletion discussion covering so many of the sections of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The arguments for deletion, on the other hand, are based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The proportion of "keep" comments that are from new accounts is actually irrelevant, since this is not a vote, and none of the new accounts produced policy-compliant reasons anyway.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Osta[edit]

Andrew Osta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an artist, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE and which rests far too strongly on primary and unreliable sources without much evidence of coverage in properly reliable sources that would count toward getting a person over WP:GNG. As always, a Wikipedia article is not something that a person is automatically entitled to have just because it's possible to verify that they exist — it's something a person earns by being substantively the subject of media coverage in sources independent of their own PR materials. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because two published books seems notable to me. Many of the sources are local rather than national or international, but it appears the person is of importance in local circles. I agree that some of the achievements are not particularly notable but I see no issue with the sources. They cannot be said to be PR materials and are diverse in origin SallyDee777 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Atencion San Miguel is the main newspaper for the community of the town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, where the subject lives. The newspaper is published weekly in English and Spanish in print. The online version on the newspaper is a reflection of what is published in print. AndyWallHole (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weekly newspapers published in small towns don't count toward whether the topic meets WP:GNG or not. They're acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article has already passed GNG on better classes of sourcing than that, but a community weekly cannot make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia if it is the best source you've got. Bearcat (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the strength of the two published books alone. The books are well known within Amazonian Shamanism circles, even though it is a subject that does not receive mainstream media coverage due to its controversial nature. Starzagger (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source coverage is the absolute be-all and end-all of whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not. If that reliable source coverage isn't there, the person does not get to claim an "unreferenced or poorly referenced inclusion" freebie on the basis of being known in some under-the-radar community outside the reach of reliable source coverage. That coverage doesn't necessarily have to be mainstream — but it does have to exist and it does has to be reliable. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What we lack here are reliable third-party sources. The Atencion San Miguel is a local news source run by volunteers (and based out of the public library -- I like that aspect). But it can't be considered truly neutral because we don't have a clear editorial policy. Then there are links to speaker bios (not RS), his own works (book and CD), gallery exhibits (not RS because they are selling his work). Elamagazine is a site where you list your own art. This means that there isn't one third-party RS. Note that if deleted there will be some link clean-up. LaMona (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the guideline rationale's of Bearcat and LaMona. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources cited seem notable enough to keep. MB298 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Atención San Miguel counts for something. Although WP:RS and WP:BIO make pertinent general observations such as "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication," neither explicitly disqualifies newspaper sources based on "localness", frequency of publication, circulation, paid staff, or whether they have a published editorial policy. For me the problem is that Atención San Miguel is the only arms length reliable source. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and EBSCO turned up only this mention in the Kansas City Star, where a collector describes Osta as an "up-and-coming artist". People and things that are up-and-coming have, almost by definition, rarely received the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources necessary to be included in Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "up and coming" is a term that could mean any number of things. To me that article suggests that the artist's work is present in important collections and qualified for being notable.
  • Keep These sources are notable. I've seen video games on Wikipedia with less notability. But then I guess that is Wikipedia's target audience! I'm wondering just how dated Wikipedia's going to look after all the newspapers have dried up? C'est la vie! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be more specific: which sources are "notable"? Polemic is fine but it doesn't help the closing administrator make up their mind. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also seen much less notable articles on Wikipedia. Not even sure why this one is up for discussion. Living artists are rarely written about in newspapers, but to me the sources show a steady local and international presence over many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyWallHole (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The artist's work is part of important collections internationally, as proven the Kansas City Star article, by Atencion articles, and by the more recent National Geographic photo of his work. His artwork was published in the book "Ayahuasca Medicine" by Simon and Schuster and he has exhibited with very notable artists such as Toller Cranston and Pablo Amaringo. He should be considered notable for his links to these artists alone, but considering also his two books, I would say this is definitely a keep. I do not see any reason for this article to be deleted. Shalomita77 (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Four keep !votes from new users with a total history of nine edits suggests possible sock- or meatpuppetry. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I signed up to Wikipedia just to vote keep on this one because I am personally familiar with the person's work and feel passionately about the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalomita77 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lipa local elections, 2016[edit]

Lipa local elections, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local election. Other elections such as this have been successfully speedily deleted in the recent past. Article contains no citations to support a notability claim. KDS4444Talk 15:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - supergabbyshoe
  • Keep Lipa is larger than many English districts and towns for which we have complete sets of election articles (e.g. Category:Council elections in Bolton Borough or Category:Tunbridge Wells Council elections (Lipa is more than double the size of Tunbridge Wells)), and on which there is consensus that the elections are notable. Deleting the Lipa article would be a clear case of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries. Regarding the Malabon article, it was only two sentences long, and this one is far longer – they are entirely different prospects. Nevertheless, Malabon is even larger than Lipa, and given that we have many English council election articles of similar length (East Hertfordshire District Council election, 2015), I am going to restore it (it deserves a full AfD at the very least). Number 57 21:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will agree that the length of the article is not by itself a reason for retaining it on Wikipedia. I think you will probably also agree that the size of the area being represented is not a sound reason either. What this article needs are sources showing evidence of its real world notability— that such sources may not exist is perhaps the result of systemic bias, but Wikipedia policies with regard to the need to have them are very clear and do not allow for very many exceptions. I do not see anything about the topic of this article (yet) that would qualify it as an exception to these policies. Unless it obtains them, then to my understanding it should not exist as a stand alone article, yes? KDS4444Talk 01:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have searched the online Tagalog language press, and have access to the offline version, I doubt you will be able to find a lot of sources. Just because you can't find English ones, doesn't mean it isn't covered. I think the size of the city is very relevant, especially given that we have similar articles for far smaller jurisdictions in English speaking countries. Hence why I referred to this being a classic case of systematic bias. Number 57 10:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satu Tuomisto[edit]

Satu Tuomisto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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:CREATIVE. There are several people by the same name including a Miss Finland. None seem to be the subject. JbhTalk 21:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn/Keep - New sources, in Finnish, provided by Ipigott are sufficient to demonstrate notability in non-English media. JbhTalk 10:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Lambtron (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will expand this article with further sources. The problem here, as with many biographies about non-English-speakers, is that the sources do not show up on English-language searches on Google. Give me 24 hours. There is also a Finnish Wikipedia article on the same person.--Ipigott (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could find some sources. I am always happy to withdraw a nomination if someone can improve an article. There are a lot of people with the same name so maybe a Finnish speaker can sort through the material better than I can. JbhTalk 21:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searches on the name associated with choreography turn up the correct sources. I will firm the article up later today and let you know when I've finished.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: If you take a look at the article now, I think you'll agree it's OK to keep. But I understand why you tagged it in the first place. It was pretty weak.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: You did a great job with the article. Subjects without any English coverage are hard to verify notability on if they do not have good sourcing when they are created. I am very glad you were able to track down some good material on her. I have withdrawn the nomination and changed my !vote to Keep. Cheers! JbhTalk 16:42, 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. Michig (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghani Pathan[edit]

Abdul Ghani Pathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He seems notable and acceptable but I'm not entirely sure of immediate improvement because the best I found was this, this and this and this hasn't improved much since starting in November 2010. Pinging taggers Boleyn, The-Pope, Kudpung and Racklever. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The entire article is written like a résumé. Although it seems like the subject is an accomplished academician due to his own publications, he doesn't seem to have reliable sources that discuss him, in a biographical sense. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't really meet NPROF. He is Dean of Engineering at a very good college, but we don't consider that sufficient by itself. The publication are minor, and I see nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is a CV of a competent though non-notable engineer. Agricola44 (talk) 17:13, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Spoken Word Project[edit]

The Spoken Word Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Considering its current state, I'm not entirely sure if this is notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this and this. This simply hasn't changed since starting in July 2008. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sigh. JISC, one of the funders, has been de-funded by the UK gov't and disbanded. This could still be notable if it had been strongly notable at the time, but it lacks third-party references that would support that notability. LaMona (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:12, 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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Action Law Centre[edit]

Consumer Action Law Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable and improvable and the best I found was this, this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom: the Google News results linked to demonstrate notability. StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:12, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council[edit]

National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and improvable especially considering its current state and the best I found was this, this, this and this. It's worth noting this simply hasn't had any improvement since starting in August 2008 when the author moved it to mainspace from their userspace themselves. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I also note that the article is largely written in a promotional style with great emphasis on the organization's "mission" and "objectives". But more substantively, the article makes no claim that the organization has ever actually done anything notable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and NewYorkActuary. No notability shown in any of the searches. Onel5969 TT me 14:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The "keep" arguments are weak at best, but no consensus for deletion has been formed here, despite several weeks of being open for discussion. No prejudice against a renomination sometime soon. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topflight Corporation[edit]

Topflight Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems as if it may be notable but my searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this. This simply hasn't changed much since August 2008 and it was until some months into 2009 that BeenAroundAWhile tagged it. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fixed some broken refs. It's definitely a manufacturing niche, but this company seems significant within that niche. Articles show it innovating processes and products. More about that would make the article better. LaMona (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs work, but enough is there. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging interested subject users Dthomsen8 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No longer an orphan, and has one more inline citation. Perhaps needs more work, but significant in its field.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. zero evidence of notability, Ref 1 is a directory listing. Ref 2 whose correct link is [33] is pure PR, consisting of quotes from the company's executives and nothing else, The other refs are also straight Pr or notices. Specialized trade magazines of this sort, though they may be the only available sources, are often not reliable for notability, as they tend to lack critical editing. LaMona, please take another look at the actual content of the references. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think keep. The refs are less promotional than most and they have some substance, at least. (There's more than just "Hey, we made a bunch of money!"). I'm seeing the technology itself as interesting -- but that may be just me. LaMona (talk) 22:41, 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. adequate consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Datacom Company[edit]

Armenian Datacom Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 and this and I attempted to search at Armenian newspapers but it was simply and easy to use (given that I'm not entirely familiar with its native name). This simply hasn't changed and improved much since starting in November 2008 so attention now would be helpful. Pinging Eastmain and Techman224. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arka news articles that Eastmain linked to are all standard "company offers product" articles. I don't think that they add up to notability. I also don't see a byline so I can't tell if they are reprints of press releases. If there isn't more, then I don't see keeping it. Delete for now. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, would you comment? as I'm hoping to achieve a clear consensus. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 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. KTC (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StrategiCom[edit]

StrategiCom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 and [http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=StrategiCom+Singapore+company this as well as nothing at newspapers Business Times, New Paper, Straits Times and Today. This simply hasn't changed and improved since starting in August 2009. Pinging Magioladitis, Tedder, Smartse and Rees11 and I'm also not sure if Oscarthcat may answer as it seems he's not considerably active. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging interested subject user DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non notable and highly promotional, advertising for why its approach is a good way to spend advertising money. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:10, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Schafer[edit]

Lenny Schafer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. His primary claim to notability is his activism, but the sources available are not third party, other than a little bit in New York Magazine. The award does not seem significant. It's an award from a notable foundation, but winning the award seems to have attracted little notice and certainly does not carry any weight, notability-wise. freshacconci talk to me 19:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I am very much active and internationally known as an autism advocate. My work is political and generates political opposition who would like to see me disappear from here. Visit my website at http://www.sarnet.org and you will find numerous awards from national autism and disability rights groups. Also, are a number of commendations and awards from the State of California. I did not reference these on the wiki page over concern for appearing immodest. I publish an online newsletter with 20,000 subscribers. I have a total of 10,000 followers on my facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/alenny.schafer and group Schafer Report: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Schafer.Report/ schaferatsprynet —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I researched this person for two minutes and found independent secondary sources that cover this person and his role in the report listed within the article ([34], [35]). His work is also cited in books such as this one, this one, and this one to name just a few. A notable researcher involved in autism and reports that are used by many organizations and government studies. Definitely passes WP:GNG; I see no reason to delete this article. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Delete. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also did some research for two minutes and came up with what you did. leftbrainrightbrain is essentially a blog run by one person and would need to be evaluated as a reliable source. The book mentions seem trivial at best. I see no evidence of "reports that are used by many organizations and government studies." Just the few cites that you mention. The only unambiguous, verifiable source is New York Magazine, which I mentioned in the nomination. His online activism appears to be no more than a self-aggrandizing one-man-band (see his comment above, obviously a conflict-of-interest, but that's another issue). I cannot find any evidence of actual notability, otherwise I would not have brought it to AFD. freshacconci talk to me 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci - I'm actually starting to lean towards your viewpoint now that I've taken more time to look at this. I re-read my opening statement in my !vote just now - I want to apologize if it somehow came off in the wrong way. "I researched this person for two minutes" was not stated to imply that you didn't take the proper time to consider this article for deletion before nominating it :-). I think that your statements are valid regarding the actual reliability of the sources I responded with - I'm going to look into this further and redact my vote if necessary. I'll follow up once I have done so - stay tuned :-D. "A notable researcher involved in autism and reports that are used by many organizations and government studies" - I said this to simply summarize what I found within the sources that I read - so far, I'll admit that this statement has no true merit at this time. Not without sources that support it :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft and userfy later likely as I'm not seeing much better improvement aside from some Books, browser and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I apologize for taking so long to follow-up with my vote above. I After taking some additional time to review the sources I provided and their weight in my argument, I agree that the coverage isn't significant regarding the person himself and doesn't cover the person with enough detail to create an article that doesn't include original research. My initial argument doesn't appear to hold enough weight to justify WP:GNG as a pass. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show the article meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D&D Media Group[edit]

D&D Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and improvable especially considering the article's current state and the best I found was this. Also note this was nominated in March 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DD Media Group as keep but that's not applicable to today. Pinging Guroadrunner, Starblind, Realkyhick and also notifying author Bearingbreaker92. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but definitely needs more sources. Body of work and award nominations seem to be enough to pass notability requirements. Realkyhick (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:24, 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. Michig (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDsoft[edit]

IMDsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to assert much notability, reads oddly promotional (just me?). --  Kethrus |talk to me  18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as although News, Books, browser and Highbeam found links, I see no convincingly better improvement but draft and userfy this if needed later. Pinging interested users Doc James and Drchriswilliams. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like paid for spam. No reviews on the topic on pubmed. Current sourcing is very weak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the concerns already presented. I can see press releases put out by the company. I can see the software and company are both mentioned as part of the description of methodology used by researchers when their work is published in various journal articles. I can't however see that there is any evidence that WP:CORPDEPTH has been achieved. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radhan[edit]

Radhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film composer who has had his page deleted before under other names-no notability to be found as of now. Wgolf (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that he also has only 3 films composed as of now-coming as too soon. Wgolf (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:08, 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. Michig (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EnergySage, Inc[edit]

EnergySage, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially tagged this article under A7, because the only two claims to fame/significance were insignificant (but note that I'm strict with corporation articles). It was removed by another non-admin editor, but nonetheless, doing a source search, I most see press releases, earnings reports, and venture capital news that was written because a) the newspaper's only job was to repost press releases or such reports. The only sources I could find are indiscriminate coverage from the Boston Business Journal, some mentions in RS, and some blog posts (not RS), likely because of widespread WP:SPIP. With the current sourcing, only a permastub can be created from RS (also see WP:NOPAGE and WP:CORPDEPTH). Esquivalience t 04:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 06:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 06:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 06:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy as News, browser and Highbeam found links but nothing to suggest better improvement although I compliment the author's neatness and sourcing. Pinging past users UY Scuti and Adog104. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I stand by my decision of removing the speedy. Although the company has received some coverage, I do think the subject needs some additional significant coverage from reliable sources. Move to draft or userspace as viable. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 07:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - The company article needs more credible sources to back it up and needs more credible information that is not written like News or an Advertisement. I would wait until the company grows further with more information, then proceed with an article creation if it has enough credible sources/information. Adog104 Talk to me 12:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:25, 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. Michig (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenes Group[edit]

Kenes Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy conference organizer with no evidence of passing WP:ORG. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OMICS Group Inc for a related discussion on another spammy conference organizer whose article was created by the same user. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article completely sourced to the company's own website and press releases. The exaggerated attendance figures are also only sourced to the company's own website. Whatever notability they have is for being a bottom feeder in this market, but even that is not supported by independent references. --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a notable company, founded in Tel Aviv in 1965 and headquartered in Geneva and Tel Aviv, Kenes has hosted over 3,000 conferences in more than 100 cities around the globe, with over 115,000 participants per year.Dentking07 (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging tagger Paste. BTW thanks Randykitty for sticking around to comment (I assume you were watching the article?) as I'm always thoughtful of pinging past users. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep added Kenes Exhibitions with prominent sources. These expos are part of Kenes Group. Dentking07 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your efforts, Dentking07. However, the added references, each just an in-passing mention of Kenes, do not sway me to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article subject does not meet WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage in WP:RS sources to permit its inclusion in the encyclopedia. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diva[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Miss Diva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Sky Groove, who I will ask to come and provide a rationale. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the nominating editor for a rationale; if they don't post something here in, oh, a day or so, feel free to close this on a procedural basis. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be deleted because the neutrality of the article has been disputed and it has now become impossible to restore it moreover the article cite so many issues. Since past 1 year I have beem trying my best to make it issue free and neutral article but all the efforts went vain. Other users have also tried to improve the article to make it more reliable and encyclopedic but all their efforts also went vain for proof you can see the edit history. So its better that someone with better wikipedia knowledge and experience creates a new one from scratch for betterment of the users who are interested in the field of beauty pageants. At last its my humble request to delete this article as soon as possible for the betterment of the people who cannot get complete info.about the topic regarding this field from this article as the main/crucial info. Is missing from the page some other users have also tried to complete it but no effect was seen. Since past 1 year the article is at the sane stage where it was 1 year ago. So I would want to have it deleted for the sake of people who would not get any proper info. From it and let a more knowledgable and experienced user recreate it. Regards. Sky Groove (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article suffers from a lack of neutrality and independent sources from version one. Unless the author proves that he can write an article about the pageant that is neutral in style and tone and with proper reliable sources (conform WP:RS), I think that there is no need for a new article at all. The Banner talk 17:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I would request the admin to delete the article as soon as possible so that a better editor could create it again in order to provide a reliable and better view of this part of beauty pageants. Regards Sky Groove (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Indeed this event is highly notable and one of primary beauty contest of India. Article itself have several independent sources. Winner of this competition goes for Miss Universe. There is huge coverage of this event in all major media of India. You can simply see this news result. If there is any problem with neutrality of this article then that can be corrected but we can't delete this obvious deserving article. Even one of nominator Sky Groove is only talking about "neutrality" of the article and insisting for delete only to recreate it in more neutral way, I think this is not reason to delete this article, it can be improved. --Human3015TALK  16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it has been mentioned twice that several efforts have been made by different users to restore its neutrality and improve it but no affect has seen so far and since one year the article is citing issues and no one could improve it. Sky Groove (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article (as of this comment) has four maintenance tags on it, notability, relies to extensively on sources close to the subject, sources may not be reliable and neutrality. No one has started any discussion on the talk page to explain what exactly the problems are. The notability tag does not appear to be valid, it is a notable pageant. The are two sourcing tags and I have a hard time seeing the justification for either one. There are 11 sources in the article. Sources 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 11 are from the India Times. India Times appears to be a reliable source and independent of the pageant. The only one that talks specifically about the pageant is 1 but that is pictures of the pageant winners without a lot of substance. The other sources all mention the pageant, but their focus is on winners of the pageant and not the pageant themselves. The rest of the sources also discuss pageant contestants not the pageant itself. I am not sure about the reliability of some of the sources, specifically 2, 4, 6 & 10, but none of the sources appear to be connected to the pageant. The final tag, neutrality is what the deletion rationale is based on. I do not see a major problem with the neutrality of the article. It states facts without passing judgement. as a final thought neutrality is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to edit the article. I see no valid reason to delete this article. -- GB fan 11:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to put reliable sources to the page but all my edits were undone stating that the page doesn't cite reliable sources. As of my knowledge the sources by indiatimes are best and most reliable sources in India as it is world's largest selling daily (The Times of India) Owned by the The Times Group, a firm that has been in existence since 1838. Plus i am also unable to add the representatives to Miss Universe and other international beauty pageants under Miss Diva franchise. The sources that cite about the winners, they have won international beauty contests under Miss Diva title, for instance Srishti Rana, she was 2nd Runner Up at the Miss Diva - 2013 and won Miss Asia Pacific World 2013 in Seoul. If you guys can help me with it then please make it a wiki acceptable article with proper info. and meeting wiki standards. Regards Sky Groove (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  00:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)]
  • Comment. I was about to relist but since both the nominator and Wikienglish123 are blocked for sockpuppetry it might be best to close this as no consensus with no prejudice against starting a new AfD (ideally after attempts to address the article quality issues since that seems to be the concern rather than notability). Thoughts? Is it worth keeping this open? --Michig (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no consensus due to sockpuppetry blocks with no prejudice against renomination following revisions as per Michig Mabalu (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to The Common Good (political party). No consensus to keep, no real consensus to delete. A redirect seems an appropriate compromise and if the article on the party gets deleted then this can go with it. Michig (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Rodgers[edit]

Dick Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Leader of a small political party. Only one primary source is in the article; I cannot find any reliable secondary sources which establish notability. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 03:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Leader of a party that has never gotten more than 198 votes in a municipal election and 1.4% of votes for a national-level seat. Appears to be a person of mainly local interest. StAnslem above points out some articles that might get this subject up to WP:BIO; maybe my threshold for "multiple" sources in WP:GNG and BIO is becoming higher than others, so I'm saying weak delete instead of delete. --Closeapple (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Common Good (political party) or delete if the party comes to an end. The local newspaper coverage is all of the lovable eccentric type, and all in connection to the party he founded. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Common Good (political party). agree with ClarityFiend.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass GNG. No redirect as the party isn't notable in my opinion, i'm going to give it a run passed afd shortly. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A number of sources have been found demonstrating notability, and there is consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instiki[edit]

Instiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is non-notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 02:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 02:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I found some coverage, e.g. Lifehacker. sst✈discuss 02:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as not only have News and browser found links, Books particularly found some and this all seems enough to keep the article. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources have been added, more are available, and article can be expanded from the German. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:29, 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.
  1. ^ "Prominence: atmospheric first-person sci-fi adventure out November 6". PC Gamer. https://plus.google.com/113923018375494418149. Retrieved 2015-10-31. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "IndieGames.com Prominence Pre-orders for New Letarr founding settlers". indiegames.com. Retrieved 2015-10-31.
  3. ^ http://justadventure.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3128
  4. ^ http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/10/free-roaming-point-and-click-game-prominence-coming-to-steam/
  5. ^ http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/05/prominence-a-3d-sci-fi-adventure-game-announced/
  6. ^ http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/index.php/site/previews/800/
  7. ^ http://truepcgaming.com/2013/05/30/prominence-interview/
  8. ^ http://www.gameboomers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/891563#Post891563
  9. ^ http://www.adventuregamers.com/articles/view/25014
  10. ^ http://www.gaminglives.com/2013/09/23/prominence-preview/
  11. ^ https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.adventurecorner.de/previews/460/prominence&prev=search
  12. ^ http://reddoorbluekey.com/pc-news/prominence-inspired-adventure-game-ive-seen-ages/
  13. ^ https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.z-giochi.com%2Fanteprime%2Fprominence-anteprima-111573&edit-text=
  14. ^ http://www.adventure-treff.de/artikel/vorschau.php?id=196
  15. ^ https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Findiecrowd.de%2Fprominence-sci-fi-adventure-aus-der-ego-ansicht%2F
  16. ^ https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamesidestory.com%2F2013%2F12%2F05%2Fpreview-prominence-pc%2F
  17. ^ http://electronictheatre.co.uk/pc/pc-previews/43422/electronic-theatre-preview-prominence
  18. ^ http://www.canardpc.com/news-53069-canard_pc_283___avec_le_test_pas_du_tout_exclusif_de_gta_v__.html
  19. ^ https://www.facebook.com/ProminenceGame/posts/10151751135092739
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_October_31&oldid=1142624285"