Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 October	5 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted by Xymmax. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Fraud in the Indian Constitution[edit]

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

Self-published book, no references, most probably not notable enough. Yann (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuț Poiană[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can be recreated if and when he plays in a fully pro league Spiderone 10:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully-professional league nor in senior international football. Can be recreated when that occurs. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home security[edit]

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

References don't support the text, which is not encyclopaedic. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've little doubt that the topic itself is notable under guidelines and that the subheading under Security#Home_security is wholly insufficient. But this article isn't extensive, neutral, well-cited, or even informative; Wikipedia:Blow_it_up_and_start_over. This should probably go over to Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation once this article is gone. It's a topic that could be written extensively upon.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone needs to WP:BLOWITUP and re-write this page from scratch, but this is clearly a notable topic that deserves an article. A google search turns up many relevent sources, including this article, this article, this book, and this book, just to name a few. If there were no sources about this subject, then I would recommend merging this article with security alarm, but there are more than enough reliable sources on this topic. Furthermore, Wikipedia's deletion policy states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" (see WP:ATD). Improvement is certainly possible here, and should be favored over deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - clearly notable topic. with a bad article. not a reaon for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reading the comments here and the relevant guidelines again, I'm persuaded to keep this pending improvements and have changed my above recommendation accordingly.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of recent United States Senators[edit]

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

I believe this fails WP:LISTN. This article lists the senators from 1979 and it's title says "recent" even though it's out of date (this article only goes to 2007), This list is made from other lists, and I think it is unnecessary. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "recent" is too hazy a criterion for a proper list. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. There are full lists of both current and former US Senators. This is a very strange meta-list.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I can see how somebody would think it's useful, I think it's a mess. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that "recent" is an invalid inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list, vague inclusion criteria. Edison (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that "recent" is a vague criteria and this article isn't particularly useful Raskolnikov6 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are already numerous lists of US Senators, so we're not losing any information — but "recent" isn't a helpful criterion on which to list people, as it's a shifting target. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary overlap with other lists (we have a list of all currently serving Senators, a list of all former Senators, lists by decade of birth or death, lists by state...) and "recent" is neither meaningful nor distinctive. Judging from the edit history, I think the original intent may have been for this to list all Senators; the title was subsequently changed to add "recent" by another editor based on the content at the time, which was probably just what the original editor had gotten around to adding before he lost interest. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Recent" is too vague here, as stated above, and we already have a list page of all currently serving Senators. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Anthems[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable musical compilation. The provided links lead to the publisher's website, where individual tracks can be downloaded as MP3 files. There are All Music Guide links, but only to AMG's catalog; there are no editorial reviews for the titles. The references offered are at the publisher's website, too. To demonstrate notability, we'd want to see coverage of the series by multiple third parties. Coverage of the individual releases might suffice. I'm not turning up any viable references to confer notability. Mikeblas (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wikipedia guideline cited is pretty unequivocal. This doesn't meet the requirements for a notable album. Moreover, the website for it is strangely vague about the details, and I'm unable to find any other reviews or writing that might save this.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 10 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. I guess all the issues have been resolved here. Deletion is not in question so it makes sense to close this. Tone 09:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vrtičkarji[edit]

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

Fails on WP:GNG. unreferenced since 2011. Hitro talk 19:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This show was made in 2000, when many reviews in Slovenia would have been offline, but without much effort I found a few that discuss the subject in some depth. Almost any TV show, even one as lame as this one seems to have been, is bound to attract commentary from reliable independent sources, and will thus be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Articles on non-English-speaking topics will be harder to source, this does need sourcing but better to tag with refimprove than to AfD. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aymatth2 has already done some work improving the article. The OP should read WP:BEFORE unreferenced does not automatically mean that it fails WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Some people think that notability is decided by article length. This sort of article is important in tackling systematic bias. We likely have thousands of US ones, I wonder how many Slovenian comedy TV articles we have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Bordering on keep, but a few "keep" opinions appear dubious in terms of sockiness. Anyway, the majority thinks that this is a silly but notable term, but that the "list of people accused ..." should be removed as a BLP problem. Sandstein 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative[edit]

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

Last AfD did not gain consensus. Subject is just another Neologism which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Article has not improved since the previous AfD, where Drmies stated "Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia" samtar ^(msg) 17:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still. Let's not say, please, that being mentioned or even discussed in a couple of newspaper articles means that a neologism from the political cycle gains encyclopedic relevance. NOTNEWS etc. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been more than two months since the terms peak usage in late July/early August, and the subject is still receiving media coverage, such as recent articles in National Review and The Washington Post. That clearly establishes the term's longevity and independence from news cycles. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New as the term is, it seems to have established political importance (Washington Post, Slate, NY Times, The Guardian, Daily Beast , New Republic, Breitbart article advocating the term's use, Red State writer against its use). Even if the term falls out of fashion quickly, the level of discussion makes it notable at least as a 2015 historical interest.

However, the article has WP:ATTACK problems. I suggest removing the Notable people accused of being cuckservatives section for a start. If this accusation becomes significant in any political figure's career or campaign, it might well be included as a narrative, but the Wikipedia bullet list (however well-sourced, and I haven't checked) serves only as force-multiplier for smear campaigns. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree, silly political neologisms are not encyclopedic. They are, however, okay over at Wiktionary. I think Wikipedia is not a dictionary sums it up. samtar ^(msg) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Recent consensus on Wikipedia has been fairly liberal with neologisms when they have been demonstrated as notable in independent secondary sources. I'm not personably enthusiastic about this development. Forgive the WP:OTHERCRAP, but the DINO article, which I nominated for its 5th deletion discussion, has serious WP:NEO problems, and it appears to be here to stay. RINO, which had similar problems in its early years, is now a decent (if minor) article. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, undue weight given to a minor and current neologism. Also, this article seems fundamentally unbalanced: it has a lot of detail about the right-wing originator's rationale for the term and little about its general impact. Mainstream new sources have reported its existence and usage among a distinct group, but this doesn't give it mainstream significance.Cyrej (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless intractable, article quality issues do not necessarily favor deletion since articles can always be improved. Also, the article is clearly more notable than other very comparable articles that have survived deletion (like the DINO article mentioned above), with more than sixty sources to establish notability. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and Weak Delete) - redirect to Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative. I !voted delete at the previous AfD. There was a flurry of coverage about the word (indeed not just using the word). The list leading up to the 8/14 AfD close included, among others, Slate, Buzzfeed, The Guardian, Salon, Salon twice, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Daily Beast, Washington Post, SPLC, and The New York Times, but no indication of lasting significance. That argument could still be made, but when I search for sources with the start date set to 8/14 (end of the last AfD), I see the coverage continued, although it has tapered significantly. Hence the downgrade from delete to weak delete. There are the high-profile conservative and far-right sources, yes (for example, [http://www.amren.com/news/2015/09/david-french-a-cuck-begs-for-mercy/ American Renaissance] and National Review -- which also made it to the The Washington Post opinion page), but there's also Bustle, National Post, Columbia Journalism Review, Telegraph, Radix Journal, NPR (WNPR), and NewsR. So this is a notable neologism, yes. But being notable does not mean it merits a stand-alone article (see WP:N). RINO is still the better known term, so it makes more sense for that to exist than this one, but maybe the best approach would be to fold them into something like "Criticism between conservatives/Republicans" (which I didn't bother to wikilink because my wording is abysmal). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a nice notable contribution from The Almightey Drill. Also strongly agree with comments by Edgarde re notability, and recommendations by same user as to how to improve the article quality. Significant secondary source coverage among multiple sources -- even if we limit research to those references to only those sources cited that use the term in the title headline of the article, itself. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also agree with Keep rationale comments from the last AFD, by admin BDD. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, this seems like a clear GNG pass to me. It is a very similar concept to RINO, though, so a merge to Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative might not be so bad either. And it would deserve a merge rather than just redirecting—and I don't suggest that lightly. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This probably isn't going to reach consensus, as it's a politically-charged issue, but I don't think an encyclopedia filled with American political epithets is something anyone wants. While the top-tier media coverage might suggest some sort of notability, we must take the long view that notability guidelines suggest and not mistake media infotainment (which isn't the best article to link to here) for genuine coverage. This is an entry for Urban Dictionary.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject has received coverage outside of America and indeed outside of the Anglosphere, with articles in the Spanish language "Gaceta" source and the Hebrew "Haaretz" newspaper. In addition, the term's serious writeups in papers like the New York Times and The Washington Post were not entertaining or low quality. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Silly and deeply offensive as it is, keep per Edgarde and Cirt. For those who suggest we are sullying ourselves a la Urban Dictionary, have you ever read WP:ODD? No, really, take a look at some of the really freaky political stuff we have already. In this case, it's well-sourced, although I'd take out the WP:BLP disasters in the "persons accused" section. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the "persons accused" section. If the term were being used primarily to describe one or two people, that could be appropriate to mention in prose, but this term seems to be used pretty indiscriminately. We don't have a similar section at the more stable Republican In Name Only. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'Cuckservative' survived the previous articles for deletion nomination, and this second renomination within the course of two months seems pointless and political. In contrast to several predictions made in the previous discussion, dozens of new articles have been published in reliable independent sources on the subject. The most significant new mentions include articles published in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and National Review Online. I'm not the best at formatting, so this list will be a bit messy, but here are the mind-boggling 68 reliable independent sources on 'cuckservative':

List of sources

Anti-Defamation League

Columbia Journalism Review

The Libertarian Republic

Mediaite

Mediate

MSNBC

National Review Online

The Southern Poverty Law Center

How anyone could possibly claim that this subject fails notability guidelines is beyond me. Denarivs (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Denarivs: You appear to have two bold text !votes above. This is likely due to my collapsing the list, which separated two lines of text. Could you remove/strike one of them? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out and for collapsing the list. I've removed one of them. Denarivs (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)1[reply]

Strong Keep This is self-evidently notable (the list of sources above, helps to illustrate that fact). It really does seem like the intensity of the opposition to this article, stems in part, from some people's personal discomfort with it, based on their own socio-political perspectives, and obviously, such personal considerations should play no role in these matters. Does anyone really believe that there would have already been multiple nominations for deletion of this article, if everything else about it were to remain the same, but with the sole difference that it was instead a slur used against White nationalists and their sympathizers, rather than one used by them? I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but that doesn't require me to get a lobotomy. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As stated by others, this term has been discussed by countless mainstream publications. Don't see how it isn't notable Rossbawse (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Myriad of sources to support its notability, relevant to current political climate of American conservatism. BigGoyForYou (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — BigGoyForYou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Closing admin, please take into account the likelihood of socking taking place on this AfD again. samtar ^(msg) 20:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm convinced by the sources provided that this term is notable enough to merit an article. However, I would say the 'list of politicians accused of being cuckservatives' should be removed, as it doesn't add much to the article, and is basically a BLP disaster. Robofish (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Back British Rail[edit]

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

I strongly suspect this is a case of Wikipedia being used to promote a campaign that has not yet reached the required level of prominence to be documented here.

I keep across any general news regarding UK rail, and dip in and out of the trade press, and yet Wikipedia was the first time I'd ever heard of BBRB. Searches of Google don't reveal much coverage (but obviously, the phrase itself, not as a proper noun, appears lots of times, as renationalisation in general is a perennial topic of discussion). The best I could find was this brief mention in the Guardian [1], in which it gets one paragraph in the context of a longer piece about renationalisation in general.

For anyone who doesn't know, since the Privatisation of British Rail in 1997, taking the railways in Britain back into state control has been a long running theme in British politics. It is now perhaps looking as likely as it has ever been due to the recent elevation of Jeremy Corbyn to Labour Party leader, although depending on who you believe, that still largely makes it an impossible dream, given the prevailing opinion seems to be that Corbyn is petty much unelectable due to holding left wing opinions just like this.

If I'm reading the history right, it appears that the creator of this article already tried to create it once through the Articles For Creation process, and that failed for the reasons I stated, instead morphing into the Renationalisation of British Rail article without much change - I then merged that article into the privatisation one in July, and again today, after opposition based on a requirement for discussion first, turned out to be groundless.

It worries me that this page iss just two clicks away from the introduction of Corbyn's biography, without any evidence in its current state that anyone is taking notice of it except itself and its ardent supporters (it's never even been name-checked by Corbyn that I can see, and his proposed method would seem to be a little slow for BBRB's liking? [2]). Kristian Jenn (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well I for one support it being "unprivatized" (If that's even a word!), But anywho it's a non notable campaign and to be totally honest until this minute I never even knew a campaign ever existed!, Anyway Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Renationalisation article is now a redirect to Privatisation of British Rail. That is a long article and deals with the campaigning for renationalisation. I have never heard of BBBR, and strongly suspect that it is a small NN group. Essentially this is a POV fork, but I doubt there is any content worth merging back to the Privatisation article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as the best links I found were this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a non-notable organization (or should I say organisation, it being a British org ). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7 NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YWTech Connect[edit]

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

Non-notable company with only primary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. clpo13_(talk) 16:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 17:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zonalinfo[edit]

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

Article about a search engine (or business database?) that fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 16:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The website don't have received coverage in non-trivial published works and neither it has won any major award. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Bharatiya29 (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nominator, the article fails WP:WEBCRIT. I also can't find reliable sources. Ayub407^talk 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, this just isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better but feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Moravek[edit]

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

Biography of a football scout. I am unable to find any independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 15:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biography is actually about a football coach. His work as a scout is supplementary to his coaching career. Please view http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11151-2005Apr23.html Ashkaan232 (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He's been the manager of a FIFA-affiliated national team (British Virgin Islands national football team), which is quite clearly stated in the article (and listed in the infobox), so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. More coverage of him in articles like this in the Washington Post. Number 57 09:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this looks like a decent WP:DYK possibility, as the Washington Post article I referred to notes that he was the first American to manage another country's national team. Number 5 7 09:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has managed a national football team. Meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has been the Manager of a FIFA Affiliated National team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former national team coach, even if it's a small country, it's still a notable job. Rationale used to propose this for deletion did not acknowledge this - it's an easy keep. -- R45 ^talk! 14:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. As Number 57 pointed out, this is a possible WP:DYK candidate. Recommend early closure per WP:SNOW. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above. Could probably be moved to Bill Moravek which looks to be COMMONNAME. Giant Snowman 19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - manages national team. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of Uruguay[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. A number of things point to a lack of notability. No evidence it actually became a registered party, no article in Spanish, and its own website is dead. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to have been a failed attempt to establish a new party. Ceosad (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless this can actually be mentioned elsewhere as I only found a few links here and there and not much. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, and quite possibly defunct.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn HibmaCronan[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable artist. I am unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. - Mr X 15:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's not much yet in terms of substantial coverage, but a solo exhibition at the Oakland museum may be reason enough. 2601:188:0:ABE6:C048:DEE1:CB96:83AA (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find mentions, mostly in announcements and listings, but the only sources here that are truly about him are from his web site, or from blog/bloggy sources. He doens't seem to have notability beyond the immediate SF Bay Area. None of the sources are what I could call "strong." LaMona (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -One solo museum show and little substantial coverage does not seem to be enough to meet WP:Creative This may be a case of WP:Too Soon ABF99 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy as I found a few links at News and browser but certainly not much. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up brief mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John G. Hemry. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pillars of Reality: The Hidden Masters of Marandur[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BKCRIT. - Mr X 14:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and redirect?), does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A search brings up nothing useable, except this short review of the audiobook [3] - "The second book of the exciting "The Pillars of Reality" epic fantasy series by Jack Campbell, "The Hidden Masters Of Marandur" continues a fascinating science fiction story set in a world divided between mechanics, mages, and the common folk." (have added this to author article), everything else are book download sites and some blogs. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or simply redirect as there's nothing to suggest the amount of improvement needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John G. Hemry. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pillars of Reality: The Dragons of Dorcastle[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BKCRIT. - Mr X 14:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and redirect?), does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A search brings up nothing useable, only book download sites and some blogs. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as there's nothing to suggest better as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John G. Hemry. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pillars of Reality: The Assassins of Altis[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BKCRIT. - Mr X 14:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and redirect?), does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A search brings up nothing useable, only book download sites and some blogs. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeckloy[edit]

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

No evidence that this artist has ever charted, which is the only claim made for notability. An earlier version of this article used musicweekly.asia as a source for the chart position, but I can find no mention of Jeckloy on that website. McGeddon (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, non-notable, possibly WP:TOOSOON.--RioHondo (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This artist just doesn't seem notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mountain View-Whisman School District#Gabriela Mistral Elementary School. Consensus is always to Redirect these, If Arxiloxos or Cullen328 (or anyone else for that matter!) really wants to Merge I have no objections (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Mistral Elementary School[edit]

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

Fails ORG. Per school article guidelines and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, nominator would be quite happy with a redirect to the school district, which was attempted and undone by the article's creator. John from Idegon (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this school meets the notability criteria. It is a splitting of a school into two schools because the combined one was seen as masking a failing school populated by primarily low-socioeconomic students (this is appropriately sourced in the article). The school is in an unusual configuration of being a completely separate school within a single campus. What's not in the article yet (I am still writing it and being careful about making sure everything is cited appropriately, so it's taking awhile) is that this is causing a redirect of a majority of the measure G funding, which itself causes some controversy within the city. While I'm willing to accept placing the article within the Mountain View-Whisman School District page if that's the final verdict, I do believe that this school has enough notability (and will have enough content when the article is finished) to remain as a sub-article. jbailey (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this to the district article. The nominator correctly describes Wikipedia's customary practice regarding elementary schools, and I don't find evidence to suggest this particular school has enough notability to require a separate article, especially since the district article provides a suitable place for the significant content of this article to be used. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nominator and Arxiloxos. I support a high notability standard for articles about primary schools, limiting such freestanding articles to those about schools of clear historical or architectural significance. Covering this school in the school district article is the best outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the feedback, I've done this now. jbailey (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you can't do that. After a week, some uninvolved party will close this. You are welcome to very selectively merge contents at that time. I've undone your redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. A nominator is free to withdraw a nomination and to redirect a page, particularly when there is no objection, as the AfD page indicates. Moreover, we are not in the business of pointless process. Neutrality^talk 05:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you linked the wrong thing, but what you linked doesn't say that at all. I nominated this, not Jbailey. Feel free to snow close this however, since you are not involved. No sense in engaging in "pointless process". John from Idegon (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I misread. I meant to say that the page creator (not nominator) indicated that he was fine with a redirect, and nobody else objected, so a speedy redirect would be OK. Neutrality^talk 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as usual for nn schools. And would the closer please remember to put the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Ropes F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable football team. Article does not pass WP:GNG (i.e. no significant coverage). Nothing in the article that couldn't be covered in a List of teams that have played in the Yorkshire Football League or a section of Yorkshire Football League. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article updated and more sources added. This club was a member of three noteworthy competitions, winning one and finishind third in thee Central Alliance. Kivo (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to note, there are more sources present now but in only one are they the primary topic. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Team played in the predecessor of today's Northern Counties East Football League, a league which confers notability as per precedent. Article needs improving, not deleting. YoungIreland (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YoungIreland, but this is another warning for Kivo that the extremely short articles they are creating are not really acceptable. Number 5 7 11:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Giant Snowman 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played at a notable level. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YoungIreland.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at notable level. Nfitz (talk) 02:48, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Nonsuch (D107)[edit]

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

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#HMS Nonsuch (D107), this article was created as a copy and paste from Type 1936A-class destroyer. It has been, so far, the only edit by the person who created it. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copy-paste job without attribution. Wrong title too. Manxruler (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although browser found a few links, there's nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doughboys (podcast)[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable podcast. Fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable sources. - Mr X 12:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I'm pretty sympathetic to the efforts of people to get their work out there as independent reviewers, particularly of restaurants and the like, I have to say that this podcast just isn't notable. Some scattered mentions of the program here and there don't constitute the kind of serious coverage that we really need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if necessary as my searches simply found not many links overall much less for a better sourced article. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Draper Fisher Jurvetson. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John H. N. Fisher[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was declined earlier this year but I can't see any evidence to suggest this businessman meets notability criteria. The most sensible thing to do IMO would be to redirect to Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems to the best option anticipating if a better future article should ever happen, this will be available and there's no obvious serious need for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since he lacks notability and even the nominator recommends this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was delete. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article contains advertising for a Travel Company. Wikipedia is not for advertising Class455fan1 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of several accounts created in quick succession in order to advertise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Spmtv[edit]

The result was Speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak (NAC) Bharatiya29 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

What a mess! 333 -blue 09:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 as an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. It has already been tagged for this. --Rubbish computer 11:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Gaman Singh Ji[edit]

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

Less source, maybe not true, although it is google's. 333 -blue 07:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be little or no coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer 11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tinsukia#Transportation. Never close on one !vote but in this case it does make sense to just redirect so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakhya - Ledo Inter City Express[edit]

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

A lot of issues, maybe a hoax, and the incorrect topic. 333 -blue 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinsukia#Transportation where it is mentioned and it's certainly not fabricated as News and browser searches show but there's simply not enough for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 10 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 as this is obviously better and exists so there's no need for a longer AfD. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burdhubo District[edit]

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

I doubt that this district exists as it's not listed here nor appears on this map. Sanandros (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References to it are not that hard to come by: [allafrica.com/stories/201404141049.html "Somalia: Govt' Shuffles the Burdhubo District Administration"][4]][5][6]. Sanandros' map doesn't label any districts. In fact, the same site the map comes from has articles that mention the district.(1999) (alt. spelling as "Buurdhuubo District" (2015) This unreliable forum discussion[7] says Buurdhuubo was made an official district in 2007, which would explain why it doesn't show up in Sanandros' 1990 listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Voice of America news article states "Somalian media reported Saturday that al-Shabab forces had withdrawn from Buurdhuubo District of Gedo Region in southwestern Somalia."[8] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I solved it, Burdhubo District is synonym with Garbahaarreey District (see here, here p. 22-24 and here). and also the town Buurdu Huubo is in the Garbahaarreey District.--Sanandros (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this UN document lists "Garbahaarey" amd "Buur Dhuubo" as separate districts on p. 2. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what should we belive now?--Sanandros (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Somalia is a seriously screwed-up country (and should never, ever be allowed to host a spelling bee)? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the article and note that sources disagree whether it is a district in its own right or just another name for Garbahaarreey District. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea OK then go and edit what u had in mind.--Sanandros (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend:--Sanandros (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After adding what I could find, I think there are enough sources confirming that it is a district. The references you found as much less substantial, often just passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real clincher for me was the two articles about the district commissioner and deputy district commissioner: can't have those without a district (of course it is Somalia we're talking about ...). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 Hoax —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srinagar Dhuri Infra Highway[edit]

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

A weird page with issues. 333 -blue 07:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wahab Mohammed[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources of this Wahab Mohammed / Mohammed Abdul Wahab / M. A. Wahab, so does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. The only independent source cited is a news article with three paragraphs about him, remaining sources are his CV and a work he translated. Worldbruce (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 11:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. --nafSadh did say 14:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see enough to suggest there's nothing for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 10 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. After all the very likely canvassed or sockpuppeted IPs and new accounts and their walls of text are filtered out, we are left with exactly one established, serious editor who wants to keep the article, and an otherwise unanimous consensus to delete this as a non-notable organization. Sandstein 20:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic International University[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. The closest I found was this, but it doesn't appear to be reliable, at least not for its coverage of AIU. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. --Rubbish computer 11:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found reliable sources and removed a lot of self serving information. The information from their website has been replaced with reliable sources from others--Number 1 Law Man 8:00, 4 October 2015 (PST)— Number 1 Law Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sources you added were not reliable, independent secondary sources (per WP:ORG). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can be verified per verifiability I also found this information in the Council for Higher Education Accreditation's international directory for ASIC, the accrediting agency for AIU. Thanks Number 1 Law Man (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASIC Directory of Accredited Institutions ^[1] and ASIC registration and operation summary ^[2]

Delete unless third-party sources of information can be found. What is here is nearly all original research, coming from the organization's own web site or from directories. I would even accept reliable sources saying that this is a diploma mill as potentially supporting notability, but have not found anything that I would consider trustworthy. There's considerable chatter in social media, but nothing substantial. LaMona (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here I am sharing numerous reliable third-party sources citing the University supporting its notability and verifiability. A few other sources while not passing the strict definition of “reliable” are included as they support keeping the article. For example I found several hundred videos of graduates, while not technically independent it makes the case for being notable and verifiable. I also found 5,966 individuals who name the university as their educational institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.178.221 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2015‎

— 73.49.178.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

sources collected by 73.49.178.221 - collapsed by Dr. Fleischman for readability

1,060 scholarly publications available on Google Scholar ^[3]

UNESCO Study: First Global Forum on International Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education “Globalization and Higher Education” CASE STUDY - LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN ^[4] and ^[5]

Third-Party sources mentioning the university: ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] and ^[15] ^[16] and ^[17] ^[18] and ^[19] ^[20] and ^[21] ^[22]

Research Paper on Market Structures and Models: A Situation Analysis (International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations ISSN 2348-7585 Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp: (385-393), Month: October 2014 - March 2015). ^[23]

Research Paper: Bonga, Wellington Garikai, An Empirical Investigation of the Nature of Corruption in Zimbabwe (November 7, 2014). Doctorate Thesis, Atlantic International University. Honolulu, Hawai.. Available at SSRN: ^[24]

205 publications by students: ^[25]

Additioanl Publications or Third-party mentions: ^[26] and ^[27]</nowiki> ^[28] ^[29] ^[30] ^[31] ^[32] ^[33] ^[34] ^[35] ^[36] ^[37]

5,966 graduates list “Atlantic International University” as their school on LinkedIn ^[38] and ^[39]

Several hundred video interviews posted of graduates: http://aiu.edu/Graduation/grids/currentgallery.html ^[40] ^[41] ^[42] ^[43] ^[44] ^[45]

Recoded Academic Conferences: ^[46] ^[47] ^[48] ^[49] ^[50] ^[51] ^[52] ^[53] ^[54] ^[55]

References

^ http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/
^ http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/595/595we07.htm
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22atlantic+international+university%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10
^ http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7438&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
^ http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/7438/10342641110reg4_lac.doc/reg4_lac.doc
^ http://whoswho.co.za/joyce-banda-393808
^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/malawi-president-joyce-banda-when-madonna-met-her-match-8570613.html
^ http://www.utilities-me.com/article-2609-al-guezeri-appointed-as-ceo-of-abb-in-qatar/
^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-20465752
^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/29/michael-sata
^ http://www.monitor.co.ug/artsculture/Reviews/Zambia-s--King-Cobra--rose-from-sweeper-to-president/-/691232/2504308/-/vxe587z/-/index.html
^ http://www.camer.be/43604/11:1/cameroun-dr-ahmadou-sardaouna-bonifie-son-cv-cameroon.html
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_John_Bisika
^ http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/trefrm.html
^ http://newsandevents.buffalostate.edu/news/commencement-profile-david-karpeles
^ http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=13155115&ticker=ENTB
^ http://www.regenbiopharma.com/
^ http://www.calidadeducativa.com/nosotros/curriculo-laura-frade
^ http://www.edupreescolar.com/comite.html
^ http://www1.american.edu/cgp/IHRC/WhoWeAre.html
^ http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2009/9/independentstate3099.htm
^ https://www.aiu.edu/newemails/pdf/AIU-WFUCA.pdf
^ http://www.researchpublish.com/download.php?file=Research%20Paper%20on%20Market%20Structures%20and%20Models-1032.pdf&act=book
^ http://ssrn.com/abstract=2520419
^ http://www.grin.com/institution/1132/atlantic-international-university
^ http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111109006377/en/AIU-Ph.D-Asks-Invasive-Species-Biological-Weapon#.VhLXJPlVhBc
^ http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/353373/
^ http://www.la-razon.com/suplementos/financiero/atencion-personal-cliente-suficiente-empresarial_0_2225177606.html
^ http://www.diariodemorelos.com/content/implementa-el-dif-programa-de-intervenci%C3%B3n-familiar-contra-el-bullying
^ https://www.naij.com/399333-meet-nigerias-youngest-governorship-candidate-photos.html
^ http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/aruna-quadri-i-feel-great-being-ranked-30-in-world-table-tennis/194758/
^ http://www.eluniversal.com.co/cartagena/educacion/se-abren-paso-los-doctorados-en-colombia-126676
^ http://eltiempolatino.com/news/2013/jul/01/catedratico-mexicano-critica-reforma-migratoria/
^ http://www.wradio.com.mx/noticias/sociedad/descubre-con-martha-debayle-si-eres-un-papa-o-mama-bully/20140528/nota/2247047.aspx
^ http://www.wradio.com.mx/noticias/sociedad/eres-mama-del-papa-de-tus-hijos-descubre-el-sindrome-de-peter-pan/20140618/nota/2280911.aspx
^ http://www.vanguardia.com/vida-y-estilo/cultura/235096-la-elocuencia-de-un-lider
^ http://www.laprensa.hn/vivir/enrosa/375793-98/yadira-cubero-cuando-me-enamoro-soy-una-mujer-leal
^ https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?school=atlantic%20international%20university&openAdvancedForm
^ https://www.linkedin.com/edu/school?id=176000
^ http://aiu.edu/Graduation/grids/testimonial2015.html
^ http://aiu.edu/Graduation/grids/testimonial2014.html
^ http://aiu.edu/Graduation/grids/interviews.html
^ http://www.aiu.edu/online/Grad%20Gallery/index.html
^ http://www.aiu.edu/spanish/DownloadCenter.html
^ http://www.aiu.edu/DownloadCenter.html
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AbMG5VJlrs
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRDIspD_9c
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-PFtj5MeDs
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELuZGqMnfE
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1aJFH_bL5k
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRjhKSIzTZw
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b4yCXWLjLg
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyewA6AMhmI
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoGAPhkkPjA
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Bbt-SkNME

A rote cut-and-paste of every site that has the words "Atlantic International University" isn't helpful. Please identify reliable, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. We only need a couple of them (not 53). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, these are all name checks (not counting the ones that aren't even RS, such as YouTube and the site of the U itself). And the one possible RS, Unesco, has a few sentences, basically to point out that the organization has "promotion" offices in Latin American countries but is not accredited. "Although not being a campus per se, some foreign institutions offering on-line courses have promotion offices in the host countries, such as the Atlantic International University...The courses offered by Atlantic International University are not accredited by any recognized agency, nor by the Education Department of the United States nor by the State Education Department of Mexico." ([9] p. 5) LaMona (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic International Univ is accredited from a recognized body. Please read This & This from Council for Higher Education Accreditation's own international website. I don't think your statement "The courses offered by Atlantic International University are not accredited by any recognized agency" is correct. You are probably reading old information prior to AIU's accreditation, hence the reason you are stating this information. The Legal Eagle (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, The Legal Eagle is Number 1 Law Man's new nickname. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 53 links 23 are from news sites local and international. While many are from local news media outfits like radio and newspapers, others are from well-known international outfits like the BBC, TheGuardian, ElUniversal, Bloomberg, TheIndependent. There are a couple points I would prefer to leave to more seasoned editors, for example video interviews, I realize the links are directly from the university website, however the hundreds of persons archived in those videos are not. These 53 links were not just obtained from a Google Search for "Atlantic International University" since that results in 338,000 search results, 134 news results, and 1720 book results so as you can see considerable effort was taken in filtering the raw results. Due to time limitations I was only able to go through a portion of the search results. Thank you for your contributions and I hope the links will be of help to other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.178.221 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

73.49.178.221, please provide one example in that list of a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage of AIU. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unaccredited Diploma Mill. From their own website "ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY IS NOT ACCREDITED BY AN ACCREDITING AGENCY RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF EDUCATION." In all caps, and bold on their page. Unless, of course, the nature of the article is to expose it, which isn't Wikipedia's job. Scr★pIron^IV 15:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation is a "Voluntary" process in the USA. Please Read this Please know the difference between a Diploma Mill and Unaccredited. Not all NON US accredited institutions are "Diploma Mills" From my understanding and research, a Diploma Mill is when you Pay a flat fee with little or no course work and receive a degree, correct? It appears that AIU has courses you must complete and do a Final Thesis before your graduate just like any other institution. It appears that several of Graduates have published their work. Please read this

Your statement appears to be a quick response without any research as to the subject. It's your opinion in which you are entitled but there is no reliable source stating otherwise. There are plenty of sources that AIU is now accredited by a recognized legit accreditation body (ASIC in the UK) including two good sourcesThis & This from Council for Higher Education Accreditation's own international website. On another note, It doesn't matter to me if the article get's deleted or not, but facts are facts and what is right is right. The fact remains that It shouldn't be deleted based on opinions and slander as there are enough sources to prove AIU's legitimacy. I'm done on the subject and wish this article the best of luck. GOD BE WITH YOU and rebuke all the Slander and hateful opinionated views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.59.33 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are now accredited by a recognized accrediting body, the ASIC, as has already been established in the Article's Talk page. Regarding its prior unaccredited status; there is frequent confusion between unaccredited and diploma mill as you have clearly done here. A diploma mill sells degrees and has little or no academic work, do you have any evidence of this occurring now or in the past, or is it a supposition of yours. More care should be taken in consideration that actual human beings such as its students, grads or staff are directly harmed if unfair and unsupported defamatory allegations are made. Their accreditation page also states the following which you excluded and ignored. “Atlantic International University is accredited by the Accreditation Service for International Schools, Colleges and Universities (ASIC). ASIC Accreditation is an internationally renowned quality standard for colleges and universities. Visit ASIC’s Directory of Accredited Colleges and Universities ^[1]. ASIC is a member of CHEA International Quality Group (CIQG) ^[2] in the USA, an approved accreditation body by the Ministerial Department of the Home Office in the UK, and is listed in the International Directory of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) ^[3].”^[4] The process of accreditation with the ASIC includes the following areas of evaluation and inspection, did you carry out a similar analysis to support your opinion and defamatory accusation against the institution and its students.

ASIC evaluation and inspection visit includes review of 8 key areas: ^[5], ^[6]

Premises, and Health and Safety

Governance, Management and Staff Resources

Learning, Teaching and Research Activity

Quality Assurance and Enhancement

Student Welfare

Awards and Qualifications

Marketing and Recruitment of Students

Systems Management and Compliance with Immigration Regulations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.178.221 (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/
^ http://www.cheainternational.org/pdf/CIQG%20Members.pdf
^ http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164
^ http://www.aiu.edu/Accreditation.html
^ http://www.asicuk.com/university-accreditation/
^ http://www.asicuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ASIC-Standards-for-Accreditation-Int-Universities.pdf

Comment: Number 1 Law Man, 73.49.178.221, and 38.119.59.33 may be the same individual or closely affiliated and show signs of COI editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, Really? DrFleischman 73.49.178.221 is not and I have no idea who this person is. Now you are trying to make false accusations. DrFleischman, You ask me to create a User Name in which I complied. You are really trying your best to get this article deleted. Is it that serious? You do know Wikipedia is a public website right? I'm sure there are many others who are viewing this information. Come on now. Let's be more ethical and not make false accusations. I don't know you personally, but I'm sure you can be a little more level headed. It's not a good look and it makes you look either desperate or if you don't get your way, you start using false accusations to plead your case. If there is a way to prove that I am not affiliated with the above mentioned then provide the Wikipedia information and I will do so. I can care carless if the article stays or goes, but all sources and references have been provided per the reason you are trying your best to get deleted Number 1 Law Man (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're neither the same individual as nor affiliated with either of those IP addresses then I apologize. The thing is, all of you appear to be single purpose accounts dedicated to defending AIU. Moreover, the conversation at Talk:Atlantic International University#Accreditation Status Update appears to link you with 38.119.59.33 and even more closely with other IP addresses from the same geographic region. 73.49.178.221 comes from a different geographic region, but its editing patterns are extremely similar to 38.119.59.33. But look, I'm not opening a sockpuppet investigation on you; I'm merely flagging this as a potential issue for the closing admin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Got it. If this helps any, I am on the West Coast (Northern California) Number 1 Law Man (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's strange, because the IP addresses you were using at Talk:Atlantic International University#Accreditation Status Update were all from SoCal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huum, I am on my work computer and working remotely so I don't know. I am currently in Northern Cal Number 1 Law Man (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The university is notable due to its unique program structure and methodology. In essence, the program gives you the tools and support to be your own university. The program is composed of 4 Phases. Phase one seeks to determine the student past present and outline a detailed future plan in 20 areas. Here the student makes a detailed outline of what he would like to learn, needs to learn, is relevant, and identifies his individual S.W.O.T., and what is practically applicable to his present and/or future real world life/work situation. So in a way it is a backwards approach to a typical university program in that the student first learns about himself and identifies what he needs to learn to reach his stated goals before determining the courses/topics/content/assignments. In a typical university, a predetermined curriculum is used and courses follow a standardized syllabus for all student who take it. Phase two starts with the submission of the student self-developed study plan and courses to the academic department for feedback and approval. This is the most difficult and challenging portion of the program where I came close to dropping out. It is also what makes it unique. The university offered me the option of selecting from standardized courses it has created. I also had weekly optional assignments and reading materials sent to me which I could develop and integrate into my selected courses. There is an archive in the elearning platform of several hundred such optional assignments to choose from. Apparently many students struggle to create their own personalized courses or simply prefer to follow a typical “standardized” curriculum. In the end about half of my courses were standardized and the other half I defined and developed the content, selected most of the reading materials from the online library and proposed assignments that would demonstrate my gained knowledge with some help from my academic advisor and tutor. In the end I found the courses I self-developed to be the best choice because all the content was of interest to me and NON-theoretical, it was real life stuff I wanted to learn about and try out first hand. The standardized courses I took were mostly theoretical with lessons and quizzes and a lot of content that you typically see in college text books. Phase two also includes 4 books that are considered introductory courses. One of the books became one of the most eye opening books I have ever read “The Hidden Connections” by Fritjof Capra which prompted me to read several other of his books. I was able to complete one course every one to three months depending on my available time and desire finally reaching the needed credits to start phase three which is the development of a Thesis. Phase four is mostly just some admin requirements surveys and documents that are submitted to the univ. I am glad to have stuck with the program as I came to realize its significance in breaking with the typical mold and as a serious alternative to typical university programs. I have attended four universities, all save for AIU were traditional universities and I cannot hold one above another in that each provided me valuable tools and knowledge. However, no program I have experienced or heard of follows an academic program even remotely similar to that of this university. I am not sure if my status as an alumni changes my neutrality on the matter, I don’t think so, as I am also an alumni of several other universities. Nevertheless that was my two cents on the matter, other editors are free to consider and use this (or not) as they wish… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.182.50 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — 189.202.182.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for your opinion, but what does this have to do with the relevant guideline? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just an FYI, some of these editors should really be careful as to what they write for the public to see United States defamation law. I would hate to see another suit added along with the rest of the suits https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=active&q=wikipedia+defamation+law+suits. Saying things like "Diploma Mill" and other false accusations etc.. about an institution when they are in fact NOT, can cause some issues. I'm just saying Number 1 Law Man (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats is a basic tenet of Wikipedia. Please do not make even implied threats, as per that policy. LaMona (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolutely no evidence of notability has been offered. The best the keep supporters seem to have managed is gathering every last trivial mention of ALU they could find on the internet, which is proof of absolutely nothing. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The provided informations are reliable http://aiu.edu/Accreditation.html and this raises question why it should be deleted. The University has been in existence for so many years and has trained majority of adult professionals all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntzatza (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Ntzatza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Unaccredited (one of the definitions of a diploma mill) um, school does not meet WP:ORG, despite legal threats and SPAs. Miniapolis 23:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unaccredited (or what amounts to the same thing, accredited only by organizations not recognized within the home country of the institution) colleges are not automatically notable — instead we need to evaluate whether they pass WP:ORG — and in this case we have no evidence that it does. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The arguments for deletion are based on the fact that there is a lack of sources that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. The arguments for keeping, on the other hand, are largely based on grounds that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, such as "its unique program structure and methodology", "its significance in breaking with the typical mold and as a serious alternative to typical university programs", "has been in existence for so many years", "provided me valuable tools and knowledge", "several hundred videos of graduates" and so on. There are also claims of reliable sources from one or more editors who do not, however, give any links to those sources, so that they are completely unverifiable. I was going to close this discussion as "delete" myself, but I decided that since I have edited the article, it will be better to just comment here and leave it to another administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there clearly are issues with this article, AfD is not about cleaning up an article. There has also been a lot of inappropriate hot air here. Nevertheless, it is established practice that articles on universities and secondary schools are kept unless they are a hoax. This university exists. It awards degrees at least after some courses and assessment. It should be kept and cleaned up. --Bduke (Discussion) 14:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we actually have an explicit guideline saying that all universities and secondary schools must satisfy WP:ORG. (And btw no one here has been talking about cleaning up the article.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/speedy delete. This was created by a sockpuppet of Iamsachintomar and a recreation of Sachin Tomar. As a note for if/when another article is created, I need to state that the claims on the article are dubious at best and should be considered a potential hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Tomar (actor)[edit]

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

An orphan, a total of 3 issues. 333 -blue 04:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The newest instance of an obsessive sockpuppet editor creating autobiographical articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsachintomar. --Drm310 (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Kouyoumdjian[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that assert the notability of this person or the plays they have been involved in. Asbarez is far too specialized for a case like this. Other contributions by the creator of this article are very nationalistic (e.g. these edits to the Apricot page). Graham87 04:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Swister. Nothing on searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Maa Vaishanav Devi[edit]

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

A very short article with many issues. 333 -blue 03:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the title is correctly transcribed, I can find nothing that would make an article about the film meet WP:NFILM. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: zero coverage in reliable sources as far as I can see. --Rubbish computer 11:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS: for Cinema of India > WP:INDAFD: see "Jai Maa Vaishanav Devi" and "Gulshan Kumar"

Keep and improve through the many sources which can be found through a truely diligent WP:BEFORE. (sigh) Come on Sam Sailor and Rubbish computer. Were youguys unaware that Google News does not crawl nor index Indian newspaper articles properly, and because of that weakness we use WP:INDAFD. Heck, look at these articles and reviews and try to claim that sources do not exist. Sheesh. And nominator, having "issues" is more a reason to address them than it is to delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, MichaelQSchmidt, the first thing I learned here was to turn off Ghostery. I have used the info found at http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/cast/id/504031 to add an infobox to the article. The remaining seven results you mention as "these articles and reviews" are either empty (4) or mere listings (2). I'm open to the idea that sources may exist out there somewhere, but I can't find them, and this single IMDb'ish entry from Bollywoodhungama does not make the film meet WP:NFILM. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I now opt (sigh) for a temporary delete over a major confusion I have with the year of this film. Same title in different sources with same director and producer but with a different cast and crew. One has this film released in 1994 and another one has it released in 1995. All the original version offered was title and producer butno year. As the author stated he "Added Basic information. Will add the full story shortly.", I need to hold off until he returns to tell us just which year he was writing about, as that directly effects sourcing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing much convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Peterman[edit]

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

Contested prod. My reasoning is that Peterman has never played in the NFL, the references currently consist of two dead links and a LinkedIn profile, and he fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. He has won a sportsmanship award, but it doesn't appear to have been a particularly notable one. The editor who contested the prod gave this as an example of significant coverage, but it looks pretty routine to me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Coverage appears simply routine articles about his college playing days. The link to his NFL page clearly indicates that he does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON, and the article gives no indication that he passes WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Peterman finished his career at Northwestern as the program's #4 receiver of all time with over 2,000 receiving yards; he was also a Big Ten Medal of Honor winner and won the national college football sportsmanship award (see here). More importantly, he garnered significant, non-routine coverage in multiple, reliable media outlets. A lengthy feature story like (1) this in the Chicago Tribune (one of the largest and most prominent newspapers in the United States) is actually the antithesis of routine coverage. Passing mentions in game coverage or short announcements of an injury/signing/release might be classified as "routine" coverage but not a feature story focusing on the individual. He has also received significant coverage in national media outlets, including (2) this, (3) this, and (4) this from ESPN.com and (5) this from USA Today. Further examples of significant coverage include (6) this feature story on Peterman from the Daily Herald, (7) this feature story and this, (8) this and (9) this from The State Journal-Register, (10) this from Devil's Lake Journal, and (11) this feature story from Wicked Local. With this level of coverage, Peterman passes WP:GNG and arguably also passes the third prong of WP:NCOLLATH ("Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team"). Cbl62 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Is there any difference between WP:NCOLLATH's "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team" and WP:GNG's "significant coverage" standard. Given the obvious ambiguity of the NCOLLATH "prong", I've typically ignored it and focused on the more concrete standard of GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always taken the third prong of NCOLLATH to be an acknowledgement that there is a lower quantum required for "national coverage" than local coverage. That is consistent with my take on WP:GNG, i.e., the more localized the coverage (e.g., small town newspaper < major metropolitan daily newspaper < regional publications < national publications), the greater quantum of coverage I would expect in order to satisfy GNG. Sort of a sliding scale in terms of how much coverage is needed depending on how widely-published the sources are. Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep based on passing WP:GNG and Cbl62's research. Great job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. pure advertising DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics Bureau[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. The company has received some routine coverage in specialist publications e.g. [10] , but nothing substantial in mainstream sources. (Clean up of paid editing). SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I found some links at Books, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that this book series meets notability requirements due to the coverage it has received. I'll also move the article title since Magic Shop appears to be the official title. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Shop Books[edit]

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

I'm not finding enough references to make me believe this is a notable series of books. Mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bruce Colville as although I haven't looked at this closely, this is usually the case when the books are not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think you mean Bruce Coville. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to find reviews for the books in several different places. It also looks like one of the books was influenced Paolini's Inheritance series. I'm not sure that the individual books warrant articles, but I think that as a series it would merit a keep. I would recommend moving this to Magic Shop (series) since the series's name is "Magic Shop" rather than "Magic Shop Books" from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article now meets WP:GNG thanks to improvements by Tokyogirl79.Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghani Mahdi[edit]

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

Non-notable Algerian writer. SPA-created article. Sources are an annoucement and a passing mention. Google search (only in English though) reveal some YouTube and social media activity, but no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I seemed to have found some links at Books, News and browser but certainly not much. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in the searches to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Avil[edit]

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

Non-notable musician as evidenced by zero substantial coverage in RS. (Created by undisclosed paid editor). SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 10:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editor. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. A couple of brief mentions on news, zero on newspapers, books, scholar (duh), or highbeam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not much even here and nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark With A K[edit]

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

The references are not reliable The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as unless some minimally good coverage can be found, I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Malin (Big Brother)[edit]

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

This article contains unsourced material about a living person. Bfpage |leave a message 11:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable reality television participant. Much of what is there is OR; no claim to encyclopaedic notability. Quis separabit? 00:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose although redirecting to Big Brother 7 would've sufficed as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show this person notable for anything than his appearance on Big Brother. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Donnelly[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Doesn't meet threshold for NACTOR. Quis separabit? 02:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grease (film) as it's obviously what she's best known for and although I found some results particularly at Books, there's nothing to suggest further improvement. SwisterTwister talk 03:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:NACTOR. I would consider the Pink Ladies a significant role, as would be Magenta in Rocky Horror. She also starred on Broadway in the 1960s production George M!, starring Joel Grey. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grease (film) per SisterTwister. --Rubbish computer 11:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gsearch pulls notable references including People Magazine and other known publications for her notable roles in Grease and Rock HorrorJjcloudruns (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZeoSync[edit]

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

I'm not simply not finding any better coverage aside from my best search results here, here, here and here. This seems like an excellent example of a start company that faded away quickly and had no substantial legacy or otherwise better attention but I even question if it actually existed as there's simply no good information and the only move target is Book:Hoaxes Vol.4. Thus with simply no improvement and staying basically the same since July 2007, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Notifying author Metaeducation. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not strictly a hoax, at least not on the part of the article's creator. The company is mentioned here in the New Straits Times in January 2002 for its supposed data compression discovery. Other experts challenged these claims in sources like CNET. It appears to be an abandoned startup that couldn't deliver on its promises and quickly dissolved into obscurity. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources are notable enough andan interesting subject. WP:N, seems legitimate--Sιgε |д･) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSINTERESTING are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Briefly generated minor interest and then sank without a trace. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company did received coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is not temporary. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I suppose that if we found someone writing this up as an object case of the gullibility of the computer press or something like that there would be a reason to keep this. As it is, it's more of an example of how the existence of sourcing doesn't produce notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. --Rubbish computer 11:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete needs more independent coverage like mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Though among those who want to keep it there seems to be agreement that this would work better as a list. Sandstein 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe science organizations[edit]

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

This is an article that is passing off as a list, but the problem is that the criteria is over-broad. There aren't any third-party references which identify these particular groups as being related and, as such, Wikipedia by hosting this collection is effectively promoting its own original research that these groups are all connected. jps (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: would it make more sense to rename List of fringe science organizations and remove entries that do not have third party references? I am willing to bet, for example, that we could find sources for inclusion of Flat Earth Society. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fringe science" is a bit of a Wikipedia neologism. What constitutes "fringe science" is difficult to say as there aren't many authoritative works on the subject. Certain attempts have been made in the sociology of science literature, but those have generally focused on specific instances rather than attempting to make an exhaustive accounting or identify easy-to-discern criteria to determine when a topic is "fringe" and when it is not. Besides this, one could look at the history of science to see instances of when certain excluded ideas became mainstream and vice-versa, but this is rather far afield. No, I think there isn't a decent source out there which would allow us to write an article that tries to list which organizations are "fringe science" and which ones aren't regardless of how obvious it may seem to the casual reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jps (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 September 2015
  - Almost all the organizations mentioned in this article have third party references describing how they go against the scientific mainstream. So in theory, you could call the article "Organizations promoting non-mainstream science" and the verifiability question would be met. But I the best word for this is fringe. It's less pejorative than crank, and more intuitive than non-mainstream. LouScheffer (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't really see any sources which condemn the organizations per se. Can you point to some? jps (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to deletion. This page serves a very useful purpose. For example, suppose a casual reader wonders if the idea of a cosmological ether makes any sense. They go to google scholar and type in 'cosmological ether' (without the quotes). On the first page, the first reference is to an article published by the Natural Philosophy Alliance, and the third is published in the Astrophysical Journal. A quick peek at the reputation of the Journal and the Alliance is enough to tell that one is likely to be the mainstream view, and the other not well accepted by the scientific community. This page helps the process, by providing a landing page for re-directs from the names of the individual organizations. This purpose used to be served by pages for each of the organizations, but many felt they were not (individually) notable enough. But some quick way for assessing where an organization stands on the spectrum of scientific concensus is very helpful. LouScheffer (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL? jps (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL just says that "useful" alone is not helpful, so be sure to state your arguments as to why/why not the article is useful. I think I've done that, but if you disagree feel free to explain your reasoning.LouScheffer (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think your explanation basically aligns with a claim that the list is useful, but that's not what the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is. The inclusion criteria has to be that the list is verifiable and based on reliable sources. I don't see that this burden has been met. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, 'useful' IS one of the criteria for inclusion. As WP:USEFUL states, "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful".". I think the argument I made follows this prescription. LouScheffer (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Utility of the compendium cannot trump its synthetic nature. Where are your sources which indicate that all these are "fringe science"? jps (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The article Fringe science defines it as "an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from the mainstream theory in that field". You would have to argue that spherical earth, relativity, big bang, and so on are mainstream theories. (If needed you could cite any number of high school science texts to show that this is the case). And there are references to the organizations mentioned here that show their departure from these theories. No synthesis whatsoever, this is derived straight from the definition of fringe science. LouScheffer (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not quite so simple (would that it were!). To be clear, I'm personally all in favor of this kind of synthetic demarcation, but Wikipedia explicitly forbids it. I used to lament this, but now I see that it serves a purpose. The problem is that obscure or uncommented upon ideas/organizations are simply not worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia at all. By attempting to do the work of secondary sources in identifying which organizations are fringe and which are not, we would have to allow original research. It may not be obvious right now, but let's say someone wants to include the International Conference on Cold Fusion. Seems to me to be a pretty clear example of "fringe science". You may find it difficult, however, to fight the proponents who ask you to explain why it is fringe. Then we have the Heartland Institute. Again, clear example, but how are you going to maintain its inclusion? Are you just going to show how they are different than the IPCC? Then we have Council for Responsible Genetics. How are they to be labeled? What about the Parapsychological Association (they're affiliates of AAAS!)? And so forth....

The only practical solution is to have third party independent sources which identify each organization as a fringe science organization. That's something I haven't yet seen that we have. It may be that such sources exist, but so far no one has pointed me to them.

jps (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete / Redirect to Fringe science or Merge as appropriate to list of topics characterized as pseudoscience - the latter article has been the subject of many discussions concerning how to handle such topics and such a list. If kept, this article is likewise headed for list of organizations characterized as promoters of fringe science. What we would really need to keep it, in addition to clear inclusion criteria, are a bunch of reliable sources which treat these organizations as a group so as to make such a list notable. Fringe science is notable, the topics they cover are notable, and some of the organizations are individually notable, but as a group it's less clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like Natural Philosophy Alliance was merged into this article last year. If this article is deleted, that should be undone and, if necessary, the other article nominated. (It was not merged as a result of a proposed merge or afd). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but perhaps it would be a good idea to merge it to another article like fringe physics. jps (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but need to rename, restructure, cleanup. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but there has to be a better name. I approached this article from the standpoint of a reader and found it to be quite useful and fascinating. I am not suggesting that it should be kept because it is liked or not liked. A category also exists with this name and with the same 'name' problem.

Bfpage |leave a message 00:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Inherently POV name. That needs to be changed if this winds up in the keep column. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just does not feel encyclopedic. You might as well include organizations promoting the theories of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx since they are no longer taken seriously by mainstream science.Borock (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fringe science organizations and remove any that fail WP:RS, per VQuakr, above. Thanks for the good idea. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fringe science organizations and delete all entries that do not have articles. General consensus seems to be that items in this type of list a): be notable enough to have an article, and, b): have a well developed "criticism" section in that article supporting the claim of "fringe". We are looking at a resultant list of two entries right now (three if "Natural Philosophy Alliance" gets spun back out) (and more can be created from these list entries) but anything short of that falls into WP:LABEL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep Notable enough topic, though the article could use better sourcing. Dimadick (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to which independent sources they are fringe science organizations? None? The title is WP:OR. I could not find any reliable sources to indicate they are fringe science organizations. This is a pure WP:SYN topic. If we remove any that fail WP:RS and WP:V policy the page could be blanked. An independent source must show for each entry it is fringe. That's not what is being done here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, no merge, since there really is nothing here needed to add there. Reading the article, I immediately noticed it's similarity to the list, so it makes sense to point it there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and clean up. There is no doubt that these organizations exist. It only took me a few minutes, for example, to find several articles in major newspapers (The Guardian, New York Times) about the Flat Earth Society. The problem is not that the organizations aren't notable, it's that finding WP:RS supporting the categorization as fringe is not easy. Such sources do exist, but the effort needs to be put into finding them and being careful to not say more here than is supported by the sources. For example, I found a New York Times article about the Flat Earth Society. It says:

Most people have come to accept the idea that the sun, the earth, and the moon are all spheres [...] but one group of people, the International Flat Earth Research Society, contends that such an explanation is merely part of a gigantic hoax

I think it's pretty clear we can call that a WP:RS not only for the organization existing, but also that it's out of the mainstream of scientific thinking. We need to find sources of similar quality for the other entries in this list, or remove them. And, as others have pointed out, fringe is a loaded word, so the article really needs a better title. But, finding consensus for a better title isn't a blocker for keeping the article, and can be conducted on the article talk page after this AfD is over. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of fringe science organizations. I don't agree that it's inherently OR to characterize organizations that are widely acknowledged to be outside of the mainstream as fringe, and I don't think the word is necessarily pejorative either. Don't agree there are no sources to verify these organizations as fringe. Here's an article in LiveScience (previously identified as a reliable source) that refers to it as "fringe": [11]. An article in the BBC characterizes them as "conspiratorial", which is synonymous with fringe in this instance: [12]. Without going through the rest, I'm guessing other organizations have similar articles on them. However, this page lends itself much more to a list rather than an article, since that would require synthesis. mikeman67 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2006 West Gippsland Latrobe Football League season[edit]

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

Bundled nomination of all amateur country league single season articles. None have lasting impact, nor significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Will TfD and CfD the navbox and template later if agreed to delete these. The-Pope (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Not notable enough to stand on their own Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd have been willing to consider them if they had at least made an attempt to write some prose with references to local papers, but as it is it's just a list of statistics. Jenks24 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed per nomination. Aspirex (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Roth (DJ)[edit]

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

BLP with no RS. Fails GNG. Widefox; talk 09:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone is willing to work on that article. I'm not. Peter238 (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(creator). Why create all these articles then? Especially BLPs? You could have CSD or PRODDed them all. Widefox; talk 13:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how that question is relevant. I created them a year ago, not a few days ago. At that time, I thought they were good enough. Peter238 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. Agree WP:V is important, especially BLPs? Widefox; talk 17:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can't see how this is relevant, especially linking to WP:BURDEN when I told you multiple times that I won't (and why I won't) edit that article anymore, and voted for deleting it. You really seem to have issues with sounding patronizing and reading comprehension, and I've had enough of this. Goodbye. Peter238 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom: changed to procedural close as delete WP:CSD#G7 Author requests deletion (and is the only substantial editor). Widefox; talk 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too long. I'll abstain as to keep or delete, but the discography should be trimmed. Discogs can always be in the external links, they don't need to be in the article. Roches (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EZ2Dancer[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced. No potential sources in other language WP articles. No hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please {{ping}} me if non-English or offline sources are found. – czar 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Not notable and not covered by reliable sources. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Popularity is not the same thing as notability. While these games have made somewhat of a splash, we just don't have the reliable source coverage that's needed for a serious article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:39, 10 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) 07:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girimane Shyamarao[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. Most citations are to his own web site. There is one passing mention in the Deccan Herald. Jbh ^Talk 13:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On Independent and Reliable Sources: While there are references to subject's website, it can be noted that there are many of his published materials referred in the website, which are not available in Internet. The Author writes in a regional language and there are regular references to the author in Kannada newspapers. He has written multiple books, and some of them are published by the most reputed publishers in Kannada.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshbhat87 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Maheshbhat87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Maheshbhat87: It would be very helpful if you could provide some of those reliable sources either here or on the articles talk page. I am more than willing to withdraw my deletion nomination if some good sources can be identified. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable Sources:

1. The piece of work itself - Books sold in e-commerce sites ^[1] ^[2] Just books clc is an e-library ^[3] Navakarnataka is a leading publisher in Kannada ^[4] Sapna Book House is another leading publisher in Kannada ^[5]

2. Reference to Author's columns/novels/articles published in many newspapers/ magazines. These are scanned copies from many published materials. While they are sourced from the subjects website, materials published in regional magazines and newspapers can only be scanned and uploaded. ^[6]

3. Archive of 50th episode of his column 'Namma Makkalu, Aata, Patha, Odanata' in Prajavani (Deccan Herald Group). There have been 49 episodes before this ^[7]

4. Archive of another column 'Maatu Hegiddare Chenna?' in Prajavani. ^[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshbhat87 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.flipkart.com/search?q=Girimane+Shyamarao&as=off&as-show=off&otracker=start
^ http://www.amazon.in/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=girimane&rh=n%3A976389031%2Ck%3Agirimane
^ http://justbooksclc.com/titles/search?search_options=All&search_text=GIRIMANE+SHYAMARAO++&type=catalog
^ http://www.navakarnataka.com/bookslist?aid=277
^ https://www.sapnaonline.com/shop/Author/girimane-shamrao
^ http://girimane.com/maadhyama.html
^ http://46.5c.344a.static.theplanet.com/Content/Aug302010/editpage20100829201744.asp
^ http://archive.prajavani.net/Content/May122010/editpage20100511184414.asp

Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and our notability guidelines for authors. As near as I can tell none of those links contribute to notability and most, if not all, are not reliable sources. There seem to be a couple links to the same editorial while the rest are links to booksellers like Amazon, Flipcart, Justbooks and some I can not identify but seem to be places to buy books. The type of sources required must be independent, third party reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject of the article. (Please note I have changed your second !vote to "Comment" per AfD policy. Also please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. Thank you.) Jbh ^Talk 12:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete unless reviews or other coverage of this author in reliable secondary sources can be shown. ABF99 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The search engines returned virtually zero results. No independent references to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources that would support notability. We have nothing to show that there are reviews in any language. LaMona (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Vito[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable teenaged performer. Quis separabit? 10:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - according to Wikipedia she was part of the main cast of Aryana. She's also had supporting roles in Nita Negrita, Pagpag, and Sana Bukas pa ang Kahapon. As well as present supporting roles in Luv U and Someone to Watch Over Me. That should be enough to pass #1 WP:NACTOR. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not appear to have had significant coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer 11:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rubbish. Not enough cited material to show she passes either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldred Gatchalian[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable reality TV star. Quis separabit? 09:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep:- sources provided to attest notability.How is he not notable?--Jondel (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jondel: I don't read Tagalog, would you mind increasing the references cited in the article with reliable sources about something other than his love life? Something substantial about his acting would be nice. --Bejnar (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Please give me time to do so. Incidentally, I feel that I am being silenced by an accusation of stalking after just 1 day of proposing keep to similar articles. Thank you for doing your job Bejnar.--Jondel (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English profile from a known TV network , already added.--Jondel (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, userfy if requested. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, and we have given the author Jondel adequate time to add any that he/she may have found. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches in the engines returned zero which goes to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. There are no secondary sources which suggest this person currently has any notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Daisy Berkowitz. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Daisy Kids[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards for a band. JTtheOG (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask that a few days be allowed to complete the page. As musician, Scott Putesky Daisy Berkowitz, is a founding member of the band and The Daisy Kid's recordings are possibly his last recorded work due to his illness, I believe it to be worthy of inclusion. I believe a quick google of the members of the band should provide sufficient evidence for more page creation time, https://www.google.com/search?q=dasiy+berkowitz&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=daisy+berkowitz Projectnowhere —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Projectnowhere Sounds good to me. JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOG thanks! lets hope I am wrong tho and Scott has many years to go. Id hate to see any more talented musicians pass away. Projectnowhere (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daisy Berkowitz as there's nothing to suggest this short-lived group is independently notable and is likely best known through Daisy Berkowitz. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not the clearest of consensuses (consensi?) numerically, but apart from Megalibrarygirl's, the "keep" opinions merely assert notability rather than discuss why it might exist here, and are therefore assigned less weight. Sandstein 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Brentnall[edit]

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

I doubt notable here. Being producer of a film is much less significant as a creative act than directing or writing it, and does not usually lead to notability unless its part of a substantial career. The refs are about various minor projects and some barely mention her. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the references profile her. Not only was she a producer of films (one of which was significant and shown at Cannes) but she's been a creative director as well. Her work has won awards and been covered by Australian media. As a person involved with a well reviewed film and someone with coverage in national news, she's obviously notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. The New York Times reference, for example, is a passing mention, not significant coverage. The assertion that an animated cat film she produced was nominated for an Academy Award appears false. There was speculation but no nomination. Being a member of a team of filmmakers whose work has won a few awards does not confer notability on the team member, nor do assertions that a person is "obviously notable". Nothing is obvious to me unless good sources are provided. Significant coverage is needed to show notability and I do not yet see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipigott (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Academy Award nomination was reported by Sydney Morning Herald. Do you have sources saying it's false reporting? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Here is exactly what the Sydney Morning Herald said on the matter: "The award comes as other Australian film-makers wait to hear whether they will be nominated for Academy Awards. While the great streak for Australian actors at the Oscars looks likely to finally end - after nods for 11 consecutive years, including four wins - there is the intriguing possibility of an Australian first in the announcement early on Wednesday, Sydney time." That is speculation about a nomination, not confirmation of a nomination, and not "false reporting". The only thing that is false is the claim that this reference verifies an Academy Award nomination. Please link to the actual nomination on the Academy Award website, Megalibrarygirl. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good catch, Cullen328. I had to re-read the article a few times, but you're right. I need to rewrite that area on the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see the notability as well as professional growth but the article needs a re-write. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen328. --Rubbish computer 11:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps userfy. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but at the moment searches don't turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dropshard[edit]

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

This seems to fail WP:NBAND. There are some sources out there, but they are not of much credibility. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 07:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some publications on a physical compilation and a physical magazine issue. Alexinovela (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 11:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there's minimally good Italian coverage, I found nothing noticeable to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything in searches to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no hits no charts, not much in the way of coverage. Fails WP:NBAND. --Bejnar (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Ahlawat[edit]

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

Previously deleted through PROD. Not well-referenced. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest he's had attention or even well known. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he's a man.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the significant coverage received by the subject for playing multiple significant roles. Even before Ek Paheli Leela, the actor has played significant roles in multiple films and the lead character in James (2005) and Shiva (2006).^[1]^[2]--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Mohit Ahlawat: I still miss Ramu sometimes". The Times of India. 27 March 2015.
^ "Ek Paheli Leela actor Mohit Ahlawat gets a new lease". The Times of India. 5 April 2015.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has played significant roles in notable films. Has also received coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:NACTOR. Bharatiya29 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Federation Of Historic Vehicles Clubs E.O.O.E.[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this group actually still exists as my searches found absolutely nothing and considering this has hardly been edited since starting in November 2006, it wouldn't be surprising if it no longer exists. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

English, other/also: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the society's website [13] and it is very much alive. I don't understand what is the point of this listing. Since when do we delete the articles of things that don't exist anymore? If you want it deleted, you have to argue that it's not notable, not that it's not around anymore! 2A02:582:C5A:4300:6D0B:F27:B961:9B72 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I said my searches found nothing, that also meant I found nothing to suggest improvement to the article. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I am not sure if this is notable... Ceosad (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply because something exists has never been a valid argument to keep an article. Searches turned up nothing to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tena Bastian[edit]

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

Questionably notable poet as my searches found nothing better than this and this and this has hardly changed much less improved since November 2008 and wasn't edited again until almost a year later and those were mostly maintenance edits. Notifying past user Skyerise. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is Turner publishing a self-pub or vanity press, or is it legit? It's where her books are published. That might settle the matter. I have to admit I've never heard of her, and as most folks here know that I'm generally quite the inclusionist on WPEQ and women both, so I will say that I'm dubious and leaning delete, but what I'm wondering is if these books are published by a mainstream press or not? All I can find are circular references on Google. equisearch comes up empty ( a number of major US horse magazines are there); Western Horseman comes up zilch, so I can't say she's notable. Not finding much that gives me grounds to think GNG. She's not a palomino judge (though she raises palominos) and she's not coming up in the AQHA judges' list, either. I found this, but I can't say I'm impressed. I'll let others weigh in and check the publisher per WP:SELFPUB, but I'm dubious and leaning delete here. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Per my comment above, I must vote "delete." I'm not seeing any grounds for notability, I'm not finding links to her poetry, she's not a judge, not a championship winning trainer. Has published a couple how-to books, but of minimal impact and I can't determine if they were print on demand or not. I'd say NOTYET. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding nothing. Just nothing, even the 3rd ref in the article itself leads to the USDA, where a search on the site finds nothing about "Tena Bastian".E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Cloud[edit]

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

This is an interesting article because I found absolutely nothing to confirm he existed and instead I found links for other people with this name here including one "Firbankian" in the 1980s (after this Maurice Cloud allegedly died in 1973) and all my other searches found absolutely nothing. It's also interesting to note an artist from this time would at least have had a French Wiki article but there is not and this has hardly changed since October 2008 so that's casts more questions at this article. Pinging TheGGoose and Calamondin12 and notifying past users Gmatsuda, Oo7565 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a perplexing case. As noted above, no French Wikipedia article exists for the subject, nor have any reliable French sources been found. The article was created by an account with no other edits, and subsequently edited by a user who had nearly no edit history outside this article and, one year later, attempted three times to blank the page with the edit summary "Content no longer accurate or relevant." (Further history on the background of this incident appears at User talk:Craig~enwiki.) The article contains deliberately vague statements: "no trace in writing on his interests nor his favorite painters" and the like. These are all classic symptoms of a hoax. Yet the artist is named on a few seemingly credible places online. The list starts with the website of the Richard Norton Gallery in Chicago, which shows seven paintings attributed to Cloud and states that they were part of an exhibition in November and December 2012. There's also a subsequent Cloud exhibition ("Works on Paper"), listed by the gallery in 2015. Another Cloud painting is pictured in a New York blog from 2009, and still another one is at the Magen H Gallery in New York. But no mention of the artist Maurice Cloud antedating the Wikipedia article has yet appeared anywhere - which would be bizarre for an artist of even slight significance who died in 1973, had work commissioned by the French government, received "much attention from the press," and had exhibitions in Paris and elsewhere. Clearly, something isn't adding up here, and this deserves further attention. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The part that might be sourceable is the murals on the ocean liners. I haven;t found anything yet, however. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [14] "AskArt.com" is a reliable source AFAICT. Collect (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. that source shows existence, not notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the connection to Crevel is pretty noteworthy, and the link to surrealism. Usually I find anyone who gets a big bio at AskArt is "notable enough" for Wikipedia purposes. And he definitely did exist <g>. BTW, the Firbankian is "Maurice B. Cloud" so not the same at all.Collect (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to George Maurice Cloud. I found sources under that name, which seems to be used more consistently. I think he was known under "Georges Maurice Cloud" & signed his works as "G. Maurice Cloud", & that means that a search only under Maurice Cloud would have been insufficient.

("Georges Maurice Cloud" OR "G. Maurice Cloud") -site:en.wikipedia.org - Google Search

Peaceray (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:Copyvio - Large portions of the article appear to be copied directly from the Papillon Gallery site. Or maybe they were copied the other way, in which case it becomes a dubious source. --Bejnar (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1) lack of significant coverage in independent sources and (2) as a copyright violation. The sources are galleries trying to sell his works, and not independent. While one gallery called him "well-known", another gallery called him an "undiscovered" artist. It is all hype. --Bejnar (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palki Sharma[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist with no signs of better notability and improvement with my best search results here, here and here. At best, she would be best mentioned at another article but there's no obvious move target. This article has existed since September 2007 with hardly much change and the author made one other article Rashmi Singh which is at least better than this one. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nominator. No assertion of notability. Conceivably, this could be turned into a re-direct to the television network CNN-IBN, but the article there doesn't mention the subject at all. So 'delete' is the better option here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NewYorkActuary. Nothing in searches to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noah McCullough[edit]

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

Crystal ball article of a young author who, so far, has only accomplished making one book and there's not much else with this article existing since March 2007. My best searches found nothing to suggest better improvement here, here, here and here, This would even be best mentioning elsewhere but there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. With respect to his television appearances, an argument might be made for turning this into a re-direct to the Tonight Show, because of the assertion of several appearances on it. But the article provides no source for this and, even if it did, the article on The Tonight Show doesn't mention the instant subject at all. So, a re-direct would serve no purpose and 'delete' is the better option here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 11:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Popularity isn't the same thing as notability. We can revisit the matter later based on the nature of his future career. As well, even though his debut book has attracted some attention, that's not the same thing as having an article on him. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:54, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devaki Marks[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest better notability aside from being locally known as an ordinary radio jockey with my best search results here and here (using WP:INDAFD search engine) and I could've PRODded this but I wanted comments. This has stayed with hardly many edits since February 2010 and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is very popular RJ in Ahmedabad and still enjoys substantial following. Her popularity peaked and later declined when she was dropped by her earlier employer. There was a controversy and legal suits regarding it which was covered by media houses other than her earlier employer. None of these is included in article. I think there is a room for improvement and that is why I suggest to keep it.--Nizil (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nizil Shah Maybe she was well known and please free to improve the article as I'm not seeing much to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk

Will improve it soon. I am busy for sometime but will do asap. Wait. :) -Nizil (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity in a single city does not confer automatic notability on a radio personality, per WP:NMEDIA. If you cannot make a claim of national significance, such as being heard on a nationwide radio network, then you have to add a volume of sourcing sizable enough to get her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio personality of exclusively local-to-a-single-city notability, with nowhere near enough sourcing or substance to make her more notable under WP:GNG than the thousands upon thousands of other radio personalities of exclusively local notability who exist in the world. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Bearcat. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Plaza Sésamo. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocío Lara[edit]

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

Unreferenced after 9 years. Fuddle (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the information in the article appears in the external link. All that needs to happen is that section header gets renamed, and boom, we're done. Why would you choose to slash and burn, when you could help build? -- Zanimum (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: still doesn't meet notability threshold. Quis separabit? 03:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to Plaza Sésamo as she's not really notable but the show that she's associated with is CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply not much for a better separate article and I'm not seeing an obvious section where she can be mentioned at that article (no list of puppeteers and actors). SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently there is only a single non-independent source. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, as per striking the initial nomination and their subsequent comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elbflorenz (TV series)[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced. Nothing at wikipedia.de or IMDb.~~ Fuddle (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The German article moved. Fuddle (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A11 -- Obviously invented with no credible claim of siginificance. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panacup[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. Might even be made up. Adam9007 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if it's made up, but there definitely isn't significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Everything I see says "something just made up". Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax, about to tag it. --Rubbish computer 10:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fast and Furious: Legacy[edit]

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

A short article, with no refs and categories...a lot of issues. 333 -blue 00:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources, as far as I can see. --Rubbish computer 11:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A fair bit of coverage on game websites, but little on what would qualify as reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless this can be moved and mentioned elsewhere as there's certainly not enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 10 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 per WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangir Mamatov[edit]

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

He seems locally notable to Uzbekistan especially if the article's claims are accurate but without better sourcing, there's nothing to match this and my best search results were here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 11:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, he is the former parliament member (which creates automatic notability). I have now sourced this fact and added it to the lede, though it was in the article before.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/

[2] ttp://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/595/595we07.htm

[3] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22atlantic+international+university%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10

[4] ttp://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7438&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[5] ttp://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/7438/10342641110reg4_lac.doc/reg4_lac.doc

[6] ttp://whoswho.co.za/joyce-banda-393808

[7] ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/malawi-president-joyce-banda-when-madonna-met-her-match-8570613.html

[8] ttp://www.utilities-me.com/article-2609-al-guezeri-appointed-as-ceo-of-abb-in-qatar/

[9] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-20465752

[10] ttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/29/michael-sata

[11] ttp://www.monitor.co.ug/artsculture/Reviews/Zambia-s--King-Cobra--rose-from-sweeper-to-president/-/691232/2504308/-/vxe587z/-/index.html

[12] ttp://www.camer.be/43604/11:1/cameroun-dr-ahmadou-sardaouna-bonifie-son-cv-cameroon.html

[13] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_John_Bisika

[14] ttp://www.rain.org/~karpeles/trefrm.html

[15] ttp://newsandevents.buffalostate.edu/news/commencement-profile-david-karpeles

[16] ttp://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=13155115&ticker=ENTB

[17] ttp://www.regenbiopharma.com/

[18] ttp://www.calidadeducativa.com/nosotros/curriculo-laura-frade

[19] ttp://www.edupreescolar.com/comite.html

[20] ttp://www1.american.edu/cgp/IHRC/WhoWeAre.html

[21] ttp://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2009/9/independentstate3099.htm

[22] ttps://www.aiu.edu/newemails/pdf/AIU-WFUCA.pdf

[23] ttp://www.researchpublish.com/download.php?file=Research%20Paper%20on%20Market%20Structures%20and%20Models-1032.pdf&act=book

[24] ttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2520419

[25] ttp://www.grin.com/institution/1132/atlantic-international-university

[26] ttp://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111109006377/en/AIU-Ph.D-Asks-Invasive-Species-Biological-Weapon#.VhLXJPlVhBc

[27] ttp://www.wnd.com/2011/10/353373/

[28] ttp://www.la-razon.com/suplementos/financiero/atencion-personal-cliente-suficiente-empresarial_0_2225177606.html

[29] ttp://www.diariodemorelos.com/content/implementa-el-dif-programa-de-intervenci%C3%B3n-familiar-contra-el-bullying

[30] ttps://www.naij.com/399333-meet-nigerias-youngest-governorship-candidate-photos.html

[31] ttp://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/aruna-quadri-i-feel-great-being-ranked-30-in-world-table-tennis/194758/

[32] ttp://www.eluniversal.com.co/cartagena/educacion/se-abren-paso-los-doctorados-en-colombia-126676

[33] ttp://eltiempolatino.com/news/2013/jul/01/catedratico-mexicano-critica-reforma-migratoria/

[34] ttp://www.wradio.com.mx/noticias/sociedad/descubre-con-martha-debayle-si-eres-un-papa-o-mama-bully/20140528/nota/2247047.aspx

[35] ttp://www.wradio.com.mx/noticias/sociedad/eres-mama-del-papa-de-tus-hijos-descubre-el-sindrome-de-peter-pan/20140618/nota/2280911.aspx

[36] ttp://www.vanguardia.com/vida-y-estilo/cultura/235096-la-elocuencia-de-un-lider

[37] ttp://www.laprensa.hn/vivir/enrosa/375793-98/yadira-cubero-cuando-me-enamoro-soy-una-mujer-leal

[38] ttps://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?school=atlantic%20international%20university&openAdvancedForm

[39] ttps://www.linkedin.com/edu/school?id=176000

[40] ttp://aiu.edu/Graduation/grids/testimonial2015.html

[41] ttp://aiu.edu/Graduation/grids/testimonial2014.html

[42] ttp://aiu.edu/Graduation/grids/interviews.html

[43] ttp://www.aiu.edu/online/Grad%20Gallery/index.html

[44] ttp://www.aiu.edu/spanish/DownloadCenter.html

[45] ttp://www.aiu.edu/DownloadCenter.html

[46] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AbMG5VJlrs

[47] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRDIspD_9c

[48] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-PFtj5MeDs

[49] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELuZGqMnfE

[50] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1aJFH_bL5k

[51] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRjhKSIzTZw

[52] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b4yCXWLjLg

[53] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyewA6AMhmI

[54] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoGAPhkkPjA

[55] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Bbt-SkNME

[56] ttp://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/

[57] ttp://www.cheainternational.org/pdf/CIQG%20Members.pdf

[58] ttp://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164

[59] ttp://www.aiu.edu/Accreditation.html

[60] ttp://www.asicuk.com/university-accreditation/

[61] ttp://www.asicuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ASIC-Standards-for-Accreditation-Int-Universities.pdf

[62] ttp://www.flipkart.com/search?q=Girimane+Shyamarao&as=off&as-show=off&otracker=start

[63] ttp://www.amazon.in/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=girimane&rh=n%3A976389031%2Ck%3Agirimane

[64] ttp://justbooksclc.com/titles/search?search_options=All&search_text=GIRIMANE+SHYAMARAO++&type=catalog

[65] ttp://www.navakarnataka.com/bookslist?aid=277

[66] ttps://www.sapnaonline.com/shop/Author/girimane-shamrao

[67] ttp://girimane.com/maadhyama.html

[68] ttp://46.5c.344a.static.theplanet.com/Content/Aug302010/editpage20100829201744.asp

[69] ttp://archive.prajavani.net/Content/May122010/editpage20100511184414.asp

[70] "Mohit Ahlawat: I still miss Ramu sometimes". The Times of India. 27 March 2015.

[71] "Ek Paheli Leela actor Mohit Ahlawat gets a new lease". The Times of India. 5 April 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]