Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 October	7 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 JoJan. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 18:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Voronov[edit]

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

Less links, maybe without refs. 333 -blue 23:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rigsofrods (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rigsofrods (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where is the deletion rationale? Hack (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clearly not set for an article and I unsurprisingly found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 Another waste of time AfD without a valid deletion rationale. Looking at the article it definitely fits a CSD#A7. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:31, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AFF Futsal Championship squads[edit]

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

Non-notable list of non-notable players, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a regional tournament that involves representatives of several countries in Southeast Asia, as well as Australia, who have gone through their own selection processes of varying rigour. In any case, they are "national teams" for the duration of this tournament. I believe that qualifies them for notability. Furthermore, four of these teams will eventually be competing on the Asian level in the AFC Futsal championships. While none of the players is notable at this time, I don't think we should wait till they are famous before making this list of information public. Is there anyone else out there who has a view on this article? Icedwater (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Referencing WP:GNG, emphasis mine: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there is a precedent for including lists of squads at the confederation and FIFA levels of championships (e.g. 2015 CONCACAF U-20 Championship squads and 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup squads), I can find no such precedent at the regional or sub-confederation level. I must invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF and question at what level do these types of lists become cruft. If this were the AFC Futsal Championships, I would have no problem !voting to keep, but despite the fact that these were the national futsal teams, I believe that a stand-alone list of squads in a tournament below the confederation level hits point #1 of WP:LISTCRUFT - this is a list just to have a list. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor tournament, does not merit a separate squad list. Giant Snowman 19:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per arguments presented by Jkudlick and GiantSnowman Spiderone 10:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Huon (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PrestonPlayz[edit]

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

A weird page. 333 -blue 23:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this nomination a joke? If so, it's not funny, being weird is not a deletion criteria. With that being said the page has been nominated and is a clear case ofCSD#A7. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:29, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Transnistria[edit]

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

Not enough content for a separate article. XXN, 21:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list consisting of one item is clearly not very useful. I suggest adding List of wars involving South Ossetia, also created by the original editor to this nomination under the same criteria. QueenCake (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Rigsofrods (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply likely no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of this type should eventually become available from WikiData. Having these as articles is a guarantee that they will be hard to keep updated. LaMona (talk) 22:45, 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. After two full relistings, no consensus has formed, although the discussion is ever so slightly leaning toward deletion, but not enough to actually do so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Davey2010 struck their !vote after I closed the discussion (diff). The result remains as no consensus, but now it's not leaning delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Vixen[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng so delete but suggest refirect to List of Penthouse Petsof the Year afterwards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as meets PORNBIO & GNG - As always this !vote has nothing to do with looks!..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding like a fucking idiot but has my !vote actually been taken seriously here? ... I make the comments as a bit of fun and as Spartaz notes below I never expect them to be taken seriously at all, Anyway don't see the point in redirecting to the Penthouse article as the actual main article to the list is forever deleted and to be totally honest it seems logical just to get rid of the list!, Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "as the actual main article to the list is forever deleted" is supposed to mean, but if one isn't going to take the AfD process seriously, then maybe one shouldn't be commenting here at AfD in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as the actual main article to the list is forever deleted" > Penthouse Pets ? ....., I do take AFD seriously but I also have a sense of humour ...... –Davey2010^Talk 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the AFD's closed but I've struck my !vote and I apologize for the above - I know this may sound stupid but I assumed everyone here knew it was a "Hottie" !vote but obviously not so I'll try and refrain from making them in future. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable - Penthouse Pet of the Year 2010.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pet of the Year, like Playmate of the Year, isn't an award; it's a job. The person who "wins" it does promotional work for the publication. Playmates of the Year get more coverage than Pets do, but they don't necessarily get individual articles. About half the Playmates of the Year in the current millennium don't have individual articles, reflecting the fact that some of them haven't generated the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. More than half the Pets of the Year don't have individual articles, either, and the ones that do typically satisfy the awards standards of PORNBIO (with a few meeting WP:ENTERTAINER for mainstream media appearances). A Pet of the Year article was deleted with little disagreement just last month. Consensus and practice call for case-by-case evaluation. Ms "Vixen" fails PORNBIO and has no nontrivial mainstream credits; there's no claim she otherwise has coverage satisfying the GNG. Therefore, the article should be deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - While I am still not willing to concede that being a Penthouse Pet of the Year is non-notable and I have not done an extensive search on the subject under consideration here, it appears that the best option at this time for this article would be to redirect it as suggested above. As an aside (since I'm not clear what the inclusion guidelines for this are/were), I'm not sure that information from this article apparently appearing on "Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 July 2010" is of any meaning to this discussion here. Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Shotgun" AFD, let's see if we can form some consensus to do some particular action. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we have a clear consensus. Davey is voting keep because he likes the look of her and expects his vote to be discounted. Hilary always votes keep and is not making a policy based argument. The 4 other voters here all agree she does not merit an article. 3 of us think she fails GNG while Guy hasn't commented on GNG and should therefore be presumed to have no evidence that she meets it. What does that leave us? A clear consensus not to have an article - the obvious final state is the redirect. The only issue is whether to delete first. I would argue that with no arguments credibly put forward that the content here is reliable sourced to GNG standard we delete as its a BLP - but what we actually do falls firmly to the discretion of the closing admin. (Note that this isn't suitable for a NAC and I will go straight to DRV if one is attempted). Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the Penthouse Pet of the Year satisfies PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been barely two months since a Pet of the Year was deleted after an AFD where no other participant supported this claim. We've had a solid consensus for some time that Playmates of the Year don't always merit individual articles, and they're almost universally regarded as more notable that Pets. I think this issue has been pretty well settled, absent a convincing new argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 08:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Petersen[edit]

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

The only claim to notability for this individual is the tragic circumstances of his death. Per WP:BIO1E, fails notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it's a pity Nom didn't add this to on terrorism and crime-related deletion lists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he would've been best mentioned at an article for the bombing itself and of course News and Books instantly found links for this but nothing apart from an independent notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing, where there can be a good sized section on him since his death prompted coverage of his life and owrk. search:[1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I started the page on the bombing to have somewhere to redirect this man, there are too many good sources on his life to make deletion appropriate, arguably not quite enough for a page. The page I started is very slender at this point. I will be back and even hope for a little help building it out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Although the event itself is WP:BIO1E, the event did finally prompt news organizations (noted for their short news cycle and coverage of drama) to deem the subject's works notable. Although the event did play a major role in causing coverage of the subject; I believe this squeaks by as a keep as coverage also targeted his works. Esquivalience ^t 00:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fact is, coverage was extensive and in depth. To be sure, it was prompted by the killing. But it is not unusual for the sort of biographical facts and accomplishments that some out in an obit to make it clear that an individual merits a page on Wikipedia. Plus, death in a terrorist incident increases the notability of an individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas Solaris[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Article currently cites no reliable sources and I can't find anything on them past a blog entry on prog-sphere and a band listing on sputnikmusic. The articles for their albums should probably go too. Cannolis (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's considered a reliable source in this subject area? I found in-depth coverage at prog-sphere.com and metalinside.de but both look like blogs. Yes! Weekly might be more reliable but doesn't seem very broadly published. They're mentioned as an influential contributor to the instrumental metal genre in this book source. I'm leaning keep on the balance and depth of coverage and variety of sources, but will wait for opinions from editors more familiar with this topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found no better links than a few blogs such as at Blogspot and there's simply no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 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! 03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:NBAND and lack of reliable sources. --Rubbish computer 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not only do they have a page or so in Wagner's book Mean Deviation: Four Decades of Progressive Heavy Metal, in the Italian Guida al Nuovo Progressive Rock 1990-2008 it says Nell'ambito del metal strumentale ben di meglio hanno prodotto i Canvas Solaris, usando sempre l'arma della prodezza virtuosistica, applicata però ad una concezione estrema di math rock fin troppo tecnica e glaciale. and goes on for over a page. That is substantial and way more recognition than most bands get. --Bejnar (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd relist because the last comment needs more discussion. Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If Bejnar's sources are reliable (I cannot judge them, having never heard of them), and if those citations (including page #'s) were inserted into the article, it most would pass the notability guideline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nobody has responded to my comment about what is considered a reliable source so I'm going by GNG, and Bejnar's source is compelling, along with the others I mentioned. It's clearly not a well-published genre, so any significant mentions are likely to indicate notability insomuch as anything in this genre gets to the notability threshold. I'll also be disappointed in the bureaucracy if this doesn't get relisted two more times, at least. Ivanvector 🍁 (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 speedy keep - Nominator has a revised opinion and no one else is in favor of deletion. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 06:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey (film)[edit]

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

No refs..orphaned...not in IMD SethWhales^talk 20:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and pardon Seth Whales, but in digging I found that it is in IMDB and the Russian Wikipedia.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rigsofrods (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We may want to look at Russian-language sources for this. A film this age, of a foreign language, and of less than high notability may not be found in English-language sources online. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

and in Russian:

Name & supposed year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

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

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

Comment: In WP:BEFORE I checked the director and actors and learned that the film title is somewhat different, which would affect searches quite a bit. In the USA it's The Hockey Players (1965), with AKAs: (original title) Khokkeisty, East Germany Eishockeyspieler, Finland Mestarit, Soviet Union (Russian title) Хоккеисты, World-wide (English title) The Hockey Players... so we have a far wider set of search parameters thusly. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has an article in the Russian Wikipedia as Хоккеисты (фильм) which Google translates as Ice hockey (film)...and admittedly the article title here is simply the Google translation, but in comparing cast and crew, I found it in English-IMDB released a year later under a slightly different translation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And heck, even this source translates the Russian title Хоккеисты as Hockey Players, not Ice Hockey. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Erik over the difficulty in sourcing a Russian film, and worry more about sourcing a film made in the early 60s in the Soviet Union. Impossible? I think not. Gonna take some effort? I would agree, yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found for instance Komsomolskaya Pravda entry about the film ([2]), among the actors is notable Georgiy Zhzhonov. Brandmeister^talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per MQS's improvements and Brandmeister's assessment of Russian-language sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article as of now is properly sourced. It is funny that the film involves a famous writer as a screenplay author, and at least two famous non-actors in minor roles, but these are trivia.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Viewing the nom's contribution list is instructive: in the same hour in which he filed this AfD, he used the same tool suite to nominate, prod and/or tag eleven articles off the New Pages list, all within hours of creation, and certainly leaving little time to satisfy the requirements of WP:BEFORE. I encourage the nom to patrol from the back end of the New Pages list, rather than from the start, which gives article creators genuine time to work on their articles. That would've avoided this AfD, I expect, since the article creator did a half-dozen edits after the AfD was filed. That sourcing a 50-year-old Russian language film might be difficult I acknowledge, but plainly others have managed, and the answer to that oughtn't be knee-jerk AfD filing in any event. Ravenswing 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon my own understandings of policy and guidelines and the knowledgeable input from others of my own observations and improvements. We had a poorly written article on a 1964 Soviet film (not a blanket cause to delete), and WP:NTEMP exists for a reason. I was not aware that the nominator does not practice diligent WP:BEFORE nor was unable to even suppose or guess that foreign language sources might exist for a foreign language film... nor that he is unaware of the intent toward cauttion described in WP:TIND. Wow. I'd strongly encourage that the nominator pay careful heed to WP:DEL#REASON and understand why WP:PRESERVE exists, and that under WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT deletion does not always serve a growing encyclopedia nor its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm happy to keep, however this article has considerably improved since it was created. The link to IMDB was this and the article name was Ice hockey (film), not The Hockey Players (film). It was also orphaned with no refs. If the author had done a bit more work on the article before creating it, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. SethWhales^talk 17:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your essentially withdrawing with an explanation. I can only encourage that in any WP:BEFORE of brand new articles-in-work you look beyond a new contributor's possible errant title and explore cast and crew and seek non-English sources for non-English works prior to declaring something non-notable. With that courteous withdrawal and no dissenting opinions, I propose this can be closed as a SPEEDY KEEP. Be well, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:49, 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. Sandstein 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfiglioli[edit]

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

Article was dePRODed with the comment that it has 5,000 employees. IMO, that's common enough for any medium sized factory and not significant. Concern was: Unsourced. No major claims of importance or significance (WP:ORG). Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clearly not notable. Ceosad (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely unless it can be improved as the best links I found were at News and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a sizeable multinational company, and there are lots of news reports about various transactions, and here's a Cincinnati Post article that has a little bit about the company's US activity.[3] German Wikipedia has two articles about the company: de:Bonfiglioli Riduttori, de:Bonfiglioli Trasmital; I didn't find any articles in Italian Wikipedia, however. -- Arxiloxos (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The two German articles are very poorly sourced, there are 3 - 2 dead links, and an article about the company's founder, not the company itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 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 Procedural close as merge We have an RfC recently closed as supporting one single article, the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy[edit]

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

Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) decided that only one article on this topic should exist. There is a separate disucssion taking place here to rename the Kim Davis (county clerk) biography article into an event article, which would take the place of this article if it passes. Even if this does not pass, this article is largely a duplicate of the Kim Davis article and unwisely dilutes the controversy into a handful of other non-notable Kentucky clerks. Kim Davis herself is truly the only controversy. If you agree, please support this deletion. Thanks to all editors who have contributed to this topic. Prhartcom (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Although I !voted to retain this article in the RfC, consensus determined otherwise. This should be deleted as a simple matter of process.- Mr X 19:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – If we assume that the outcome of the RfC will stand, one of the two articles should be deleted. This article seems like mostly just a copy-paste spin-off of the other one, and it has generally not been updated or improved much since the spin-off. So if one of them should be deleted, it should be this one. This is not a comment about what name the surviving article should have. It is merely a comment about which one should have its edit history preserved. If only one will be kept, the one with the valuable edit history is the other one. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Kim Davis keeping this article's title intact and replacing the other article's title. No way should there be a BLP for Davis per 1E and NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any disagreement here with the idea that the surviving article shouldn't be titled as a BLP about Davis. There's already an RM on the naming question that's currently being discussed. The exact mechanics of how to get from two articles to one seem like the only real issue raised here (so far). I just suggest basing the content on the other article instead of this one because this one started as a copy-paste content fork, and people have been working on improving the other article while this article seems relatively neglected. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, there is nothing worth merging. This article is a copy of the Davis article (although all further development has been occurring there), but it turned out that there wasn't any significant content or controversy outside Davis to make this article go anywhere. There is very little unique content here, and there might be a way to include it in the other article. Davis does not deserve a pure biography, and that's not what she's getting. Her article is a person/event article, with the main weight on the event, as can be seen if you actually bothered to study the Davis article and sources. For some time now, all your comments about this reveal no evidence that you have actually done that. That's how far off the mark your comments are. You should create some good Google Alerts on this subject. You'd discover the enormous coverage, also internationally, and how far reaching her actions are into many fields of thought, law, and rights. NOTNEWS doesn't apply anymore. We're way beyond that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rigsofrods (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then rename the Kim Davis article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy (thus keeping the original and proper contribution history), to emphasize that the event is the most notable feature, but that she is the only one involved in it and keeping it going. This article should never have been created. All we needed was the suggested rename. The rename will solve all our problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per two recent snow keep's of Kim Davis (county clerk), no matter what's decided for this spin-off article, Kim Davis (county clerk) must stay with its current name, or we have a breach of process. Any !votes here that suggest changing that result should be considered invalid. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. For the purposes of this AfD, those comments have no validity, but for the move discussion, they still do, because throughout all these AfDs and RfCs, it has been recognized that Kim Davis does not deserve a pure biography apart from the controversy, IOW two articles, one purely about her (without the controversy) and one only about the controversy. The current title is the type of title one uses for a pure biography.
The Kim Davis article, with its content and scope (mostly about the controversy), has always been what was approved (not the title), but the title doesn't match the content, as it should. The controversy should be the main focus, and it is in that article, but not in the title. A move to the better title is the only change that needs to happen after this article is deleted. Unfortunately some editors who have not been involved in all this mess have come to the move discussion and objected, using arguments which are not valid, per both AfDs. They are muddying the waters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two snow keep's in a row would seem to invalidate the RM as well. It was kept as a biography. Otherwise, here you are stating your opinion that belongs only in that RM. There are other opinions there who vehemently disagree using objective reasoning. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple, unless one ignores the actual comments in those AfDs. The scope and content were approved twice. The fact that the title was the only one which could be used in the AfDs is just that, and says nothing about whether that title was optimal or not. It was the existence of the article which was the bone of contention, and not the title itself. The deletion of this article prepares for the next step, which is to change that title so the title actually describes the content, and Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy does that perfectly. The current title is woefully inadequate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as Keep, therefore it was kept as a biography. It is that simple. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are revealing that you haven't carefully examined what was actually said in those AfDs. The article was saved with its scope and content, and it could not have been "kept as a biography", because it's never been a pure biography, but has always been an event/biography article, with the weight on the event. There has always been clear opposition to a pure biography because Davis is not notable apart from the controversy.
The purpose of an AfD is to save or delete an article, not determine the title. That's a matter for an RfC, and several have been held about the title. No position was taken on the actual title in the first AfD.
The second AfD was VERY DIFFERENT than the first AfD. It was a whole different story, being based on the experience from the first AfD and reacting to several RfCs about the title. There were MANY comments about the title being inadequate and not describing the content properly. In the second AfD, many desired that this Kentucky article be deleted and that the Kim Davis article be saved and receive a better title, most favoring Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. That was a frequent theme in that AfD.
Summary of the contents (not final decision) of the second AfD: (1) KEEP the Kim Davis article with its scope and content; (2) CHANGE to better title; (3) DELETE this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC) (revised, per comments below) -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The summary of the second AfD is: "The result was Snow keep, please request moves at WP:RM not WP:AFD." The deletion of this article is a separate matter which was (I thought) determined in the RfC: talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?). The question of whether the title of Kim Davis (county clerk) will be changed is a matter of an ongoing move request at talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#Requested move 6 October 2015. - Mr X 01:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, you have a point. My comment can be interpreted as referring to the closing decision, which of course, as you point out, could only be a decision on saving or deleting the article. My "summary" above was meant as a summary of the content, not the decision. The closer's summary makes it clear they were aware of those discussion points, but referred those matters to the proper forum. I'll tweak my comment a bit so that misunderstandings won't occur in the future. Thanks for catching that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altogether that's an opinion and not everyone shares it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Process Delete There was an earlier consensus to create this spin-off article, but then there was a later consensus to only have one article. It's possible the earlier consensus was arrived at too hastily. I still see the rationale for two articles, but for the sake of process, and assuming two snow keep's of Kim Davis (county clerk) hold that in place, I can accept rolling back the earlier spin-off decision for now. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please process my !vote as a Keep if that's the eventual consensus from others. "Process Delete" just means I'm willing to let the article go for now as it was possibly created too hastily. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - there should only be one article about the controversy, and it should live at this title per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Whether or not Kim Davis should have a separate biography is a different issue. There is certainly some content work required to sort this out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the editor above and to all editors: Please read the Kim Davis article. Compare it to this article. See which one is vibrantly alive and maintained and which one is a mostly-dead copy of the other. See which one has posted at the top of it's talk page: "Text and/or other creative content from Kim Davis (county clerk) was copied or moved into Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy" Educate yourself before making your decision here on this page. This is sensible advice. Prhartcom (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is wise advice, however I think that which article is better is irrelevant to this discussion. When I review an AfD, I look at the article title, and consider whether that topic meets the inclusion criteria, based on our policies and guidelines, and relevant consensus. I don't really bother with the current content, because that can always be fixed, and AfD is not cleanup. The same-sex marriage license controversy in Kentucky is certainly notable, who would even argue? Thus we should keep this page, and make it our article about the controversy, because we surely don't need two articles about the same thing.

That being said, if as you say the Kim Davis (county clerk) article is currently a better article about the controversy than this one is, rather than the biography that it should be, then I wouldn't oppose moving that article over this one, or history-merging or whatever is required for attribution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you; we agree; that is exactly the point of the move discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, your mention of AfD is not cleanup is a bit misplaced in this situation. When one must choose between two identical articles, one needs to delete one of them. That's a form of cleanup. This one was an improperly created article. It was a copy paste of the Kim Davis article, but supposedly would end up with a larger scope (the controversy in all of Kentucky). Well, that has never materialized in RS. Only two other clerks have objected, but they haven't become significant subjects in RS, partially because Kim Davis has been much more aggressive, and the American Civil Liberties Union deliberately chose to ignore them and focus on Davis. Hence the court cases, and jailing. Davis IS the controversy. It doesn't exist apart from her. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, would you please consider changing your keep to delete? This is the article which needs to go, and the other stay. That article has passed two AfDs as snow keep. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think NOTCLEANUP was the right essay to point to to express my opinion. As I read it, there's a strong consensus that there should be an article about the controversy, and very little agreement whether or not Davis should have a bio (I have voted in favour, FTR). I'll consider changing my !vote but not to delete. This has turned into an end-run around a move discussion (though probably not originally intended), and I'm thinking that this should be closed with no action, or suspended pending outcome of the RM. If it's agreed that the controversy article should live here, then whichever one is better can be moved over this title as G6 maintenance, but there's no need to preemptively delete this page before the RM concludes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as I've noted directly above, and directly below. This AfD is a misplaced request to move Kim Davis (county clerk) over this page, and that discussion is already happening in the proper forum. There's no reason to preemptively decide this page's fate before that discussion concludes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I wonder if this discussion will end up being redundant to the discussion at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#Requested move 6 October 2015, on moving that page to a title covering the controversy (but not this title). It doesn't look that way now, but please consider whether the result here conflicts with the result there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion here actually makes it easier to move that article to its proper title. We are not supposed to have two articles with nearly identical content, and it's the Kim Davis article which is the first one and is MUCH better developed, with it having ALL of the current content here (except for a paragraph), and much more. That article includes this one in its entirety. This one was a direct copy paste of that article at the time, but it hasn't been developed much, simply because RS didn't justify adding more. Everything about this controversy centers around Kim Davis, which is why that article needs to be renamed to include the controversy. The scope and content there is mainly about the controversy.. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know what kind of football people are playing here, but this article says that three county clerks refused to issue licenses. Therefore, it cannot be confined within a Kim Davis article. Additionally, a consensus of people on a different article's talk page (Kim Davis) is not reason to delete this article. There's a page to develop that consensus, which would be here, and I'd like to see people do it from scratch. Last but not least... someone please track down what is going on with the other two clerks. Thanks. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need because they are not notable. Reliable sources do not care about those other clerks so neither does Wikipedia. Kim Davis is the only notable county clerk on this subject. Her article briefly touches on these other clerks as well as on the Alabama probate judges. This article is nominated for deletion because it is a mostly un-maintained copy of the Kim Davis article. Prhartcom (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Pride[edit]

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

This team/entity does not exist. There are no references on the page, the website listed does not exist, and the league's website, NWSLsoccer.com, has no mention of this team. Elisfkc (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While nothing has been officially announced, there is a growing body of evidence that the team has already been approved and should be announced within the next month, though the name is definitely in flux. I would wait before deciding to delete. CyMoahk2 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of those sources is based on web domain registration, which is false (as seen by trying to go to that page). Until rumors become fact (meaning it is officially announced), there is no reason for it to be on wikipedia. Elisfkc (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a website isn't showing anything (all I see is a "connection reset" error) doesn't mean its domain isn't registered. I agree that the page was created too early, but everyone is expecting the announcement at the upcoming USWNT game in Orlando. My point is that, even if another editor jumped the gun by about a month, it seems rather silly to me at this point to delete the page when it is 99.99% going to be needed again in just three weeks. CyMoahk2 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a textbook example of WP:TOOSOON. While this club may very well become notable in future, it clearly isn't yet, seeing has how it doesn't even exist yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can be restored if and when it comes into actual existence. At the minute it's not much more than speculation. Giant Snowman 19:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL - the team may have been approved, but until it actually competes in a WP:FPL, there is nothing encyclopedic here. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:07, 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 Redirect to Furry fandom#Role-playing seems to be the consensus here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestries MUCK[edit]

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

Article topic (the video game) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful or in-depth coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to its mention at Furry_fandom#Role-playing may suffice. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 17:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect over to where it's referred to at Furry_fandom#Role-playing, and any additional information being added over there can be brought up at that article's related talk page CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Most of the references to reliable sources, especially the Wired op-ed, are solely passing mentions. Those can be valuable for rounding out an article (or sourcing a section in a broader topic), but not sustaining an article through AFD. I do not have access to the 1998 San Francisco Bay Guardian article; that has the potential to be determinative, but absent something dramatic, I think a merger is probably the ideal outcome here. I'll note that WP:VG's reliable sources list might not be precisely on point here; I wouldn't consider this a "video game" in the traditional sense, and I certainly don't expect potential sourcing to come from the video game review industry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the SFBG article. It isn't supportive; it doesn't mention Tapestries. (It'd be a fine support piece for FurryMUCK.) —chaos5023 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mischa Rick van Geelen[edit]

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

This "white hat hacker" has some sources in Dutch, but IPs can't seem to bear the article's existence, templating it for CSD several times. To solve the consensus, I'm bringing the debate here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being mentioned a couple times, even by perhaps reliable sources, isn't the same thing as general notability, and I feel inclined to think that the article should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm not finding much better. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and the mentions don't appear to satisfy WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 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 speedy deleted by DMacks. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 12:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haalum[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, borderline speedy A7 but erring on the side of caution here. shoy (reactions) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 and tagged as such. Has been repeatedly created then speedily deleted. As such, I also recommend that this article be salted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:51, 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 redirect to Monoplane. Sandstein 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parasol wing[edit]

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

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles Claim of "consensus" between just two editors, not even noted on the articles affected, is no reason to start deleting articles by blanking. Especially not on obviously notable topics (this hasn't ever been challenged). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a notable sub-form of the monoplane wing. It has a recorded history of its own, it has a timespan of relevance that doesn't even overlap much with the non-parasol cantilever monoplanes (for technical reasons, parasol monoplanes were largely contemporaneous with biplanes, then replaced by the now familiar cantilever monoplane). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why don't you discuss instead of nominating this for deletion and then !voting keep? This approach seems a bit too WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can't imagine. Maybe because of the way your idea of WP:BRD after this article was restored was to immediately blank it again. Discussion? Do you speak it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes indeed, we were already having that discussion and in fact you just joined in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles. For the record I didn't "blank" it, I redirected it. Not the same thing. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion but then voting the other way is clearly perverse. This conversation is already under way at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles, why duplicate it like this? When I saw the nomination I assumed a change of heart. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the "timespan of relevance" mentioned: Yes it had a brief vogue, but the encyclopedic significance of that can be summed up in a short section - which is already at monoplane. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "brief vogue"? Maybe against the "sticks and wire" biplanes, but it's also popular into the 1940s for seaplanes, has a resurgence in the '70s-'90s for microlights and has even been studied by NASA for recovery after re-entry (As a parasol wing supports the fuselage almost entirely in tension, it's easier to make it fold for storage). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's my point. You've said just about all that is to be said. Each of these cases is quite unrelated to the others both technically and historically, and each needs treating in its own article, where it can be presented in the context of the other designs used for the same purpose. All we need to pull them together is a summary section with a few links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So "parasol wing" isn't notable, but "parasol wing (only as applied to 1930s seaplanes)" is? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You raised that query in the original discussion and in my reply I quoted the relevant passage from WP:NOTABILITY for you. Notability is a necessary condition for a standalone article but it is not a sufficient one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate using your example, the choice of a given wing type for a seaplane depends on the demands of the job and the technologies available. The various wing types used, and why, is a significant discussion but it is not relevant to a summary of any given wing type, beyond a quick one-liner and a link. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong redirect. There is little notable or significant about this topic that is not already said in the relevant section of the Monoplane article. Yes, the parasol wing has a history and was briefly fashionable, but there is not enough to sustain any kind of structured discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Monoplane. The subject is already covered here and the current article is little more than a dictionary definition. See the policy on this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It makes much more sense to consolidate all wing locations at monoplane and redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something is a dictionary definition is no reason to assume that it can only be a dictionary definition. Cheese and volcano are both in the dictionary, yet you'd not suggest they don't belong in an encyclopedia too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has existed for 11 years and has been pretty stable for a long time. There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8 years is too short to judge articles when editors are sparse. Maybe once a year a qualified editor passes by such a niche article, sees something he can improve, but feels other topics deserve his time better. So nothing happens. But merging several small articles might attract more editors, and after maybe 10 more years some sections might have grown to be spawned - improving both parent and spawn article. Article notability and editor interest is not the same. TGCP (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just what does this sort of "stomp the stubs" approach do to encourage other editors? There are plenty of editors competent to work on this, but what's the point in doing anything constructive against such organised resistance? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you look at it. It's the content that matters, not the placement. The slow growth seems to indicate that editors are not interested, but if content is included in a bigger article, more editors might view and edit this content, particularly when contrasted with content of other wingforms right nearby. TGCP (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly convincing though when the much broader scope of monoplane has still only generated an article that's proportionately less developed.

We have a whole bunch of policy and practice, from WP:IMPERFECT onwards, that recognises the long-term nature of such a project and that it both can't be rushed and also needs encouragement. This sort of blanking runs directly counter to this, and the aims of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't blanked. The key text was already in monoplane and this page was redirected. Big difference. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with content - to Monoplane now, spawn to Parasol wing when Monoplane has enough content. There is a lot of PW content (although more could be made) considering how few there are, and how many non-PW monoplanes the world has now. As soon as other content starts to fill Monoplane article, PW content should be spawned out to Parasol wing again so it doesn't clutter the main article. TGCP (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monoplane has been there for 13 years and hasn't managed to grow past 8k in size for a pretty big topic. Per Ahunt's argument above, "There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added." So why merge parasol wing to an article that's in an even weaker state? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well merging stubs like this one into it would certainly achieve that, hence the consensus to do just that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monoplane is far the stronger article, claiming the opposite is just perverse. I already merged in the viable content from parasol wing some days ago. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonatan Lucca[edit]

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

PROD contested for no reason although I guess it is because he played in the 3rd division in Brazil, which is not fully-pro as per WP:FPL. So the player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom's sound analysis. Cavarrone 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has not yet played in a WP:FPL, and has no significant media coverage, thus fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. If subject appears for FC Goa this season, then deletion review is appropriate, but WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Keep - Subject has played in an FPL - substituted in at 83'. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has indeed appeared for FC Goa ina league listed at FPL. Please revise your vote, according to your statement. Kraxler (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Jonatan has appeared in a Copa Paranaense match between two fully-pro clubs (e.g., Atlético and Parana) which meets the spirit of NFOOTY (and Atlético had not yet avoided relegation so this was an important match). I've added a few references to the article, but they are fairly routine. It's a close call, but I think this one can satisfy the GNG and NFOOTY can be invoked because of the importance of the cup match between two fully-pro sides. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to prove Brazilian Serie C is professional, rather than Copa Paranaense, which usually played by B team. I haven't start researching Serie C yet, but definitively more professional than Serie D which local team qualifying as regional cup winner. Matthew_hk t c 08:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian football considers the state-level competitions, including Copa Paranaense, to be separate from the national Series. Thus, even though a Copa Paranaense match could be contested between a club from Serie A and a club from Serie B (both fully professional leagues), the match itself is not considered part of a WP:FPL. As the Copa Paranaense has a league table completely separate from Serie A and Serie B tables, I have to conclude that these matches do not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it is unclear whether the Copa Paranaense is a FPL (there are fully-pro clubs participating, but I don't think all clubs must be), we have established consensus that a competitive match between two fully-pro clubs (e.g., in a confederation-wide or national cup) satisfies the spirit of NFOOTY. I realize the Paraná-state competition is not a national cup like England's FA Cup, but it is a means of entry into the national competitions and I see no reason to believe Atlético-PR or Paraná Clube were treating the state competition lightly or using reserves (at least until they had mathematically avoided relegation). Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Even if this player has indeed played in one match that qualifies him for WP:NFOOTY I'm tempted to still vote delete on the basis that it clearly fails WP:GNG. I know that this is still a controversial issue but I know that we have deleted some articles recently where a player has played one cup game between two fully pro clubs. In cases such as this we should look at GNG instead of seeing NFOOTY as a rigid boundary. Spiderone 07:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plays currently in a fully professional league, passes WP:NFOOTY, season just started last week-end Kraxler (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has now played in a fully professional league. Also seems to have been the subject of some coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I withdraw the AfD as Lucca recently made his fully-pro debut. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has made his debut in a WP:FPL here and the player is 21 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no questions now he's made Indian debut. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appeared for FC Goa at a fully-professional level. --Jimbo^[online] 14:33, 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. Sandstein 19:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Jack[edit]

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

Only notable as a victim of 9/11 but no substantial coverage apart from that so WP:1E applies. (Paid editing cleanup). SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: also note none of the results through the above links are about him. --Rubbish computer 17:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This individual may have been awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the United States Department of Defense's highest award for civilians, which could make him notable under WP:ANYBIO. This is spoken of in the article but not cited. — Brianhe (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. His Pentagon 9/11 Memorial entry[4] only states he received the Defense Exceptional Service Medal twice. The Distinguished Civilian Service Award would not have conferred automatic notability in any case. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would, of course, be possible to create a target for that redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see lots of source about him per se meeting GNG and a school is named in his honor. Lead could be improved. --JumpLike23 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems a perfect example of WP:BIO1E. Nothing to show notability outside of that tragedy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing notable outside that tragedy" ? Nothing notable except... it was an attack on the Pentagon? And, of course, the fact that this attack hand an enduring impact in dragging the United States into a series of unsuccessful wars... An event of that scale and with that impact cannot simply be dismissed in a discussion of what confers notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of his article was significant enough to be re-published in a 2013 book, "Collective Choice: Essays in Honor of MANCUR OLSON, here: [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability conferred by substantive media coverage surrounding his death. Wikipedia has many articles on victims of this attack. It is the kind of informative detail readers expect on Wikipedia. I took the time to add the appropriate category and link it form appropriate articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Nobody is disputing that those sources exist, but per WP:1E those aren't sufficient for a standalone article. Your argument appears to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF. SmartSE (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merely pointing out that a very specific set of precedents (kept articles on 9/11 victims) exists. As for the sources, Clearly what suffices is a matter of judgment. I think being a victim of this act of terrorism adds to notability. As does having a school named in your honor. But I am responding to your comment to point out that It is because guidelines require judgment calls that we have AFD. And because and standards for keeping/deleting change over time that citing precedents can be useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's local news coverage saying similar stuff about how a school was named after him, shows that he was honored by his community. Much like the other people he is talked about with here [6]. The other sources are typical for 9/11 victims, and it's all still connected to the attack, it wasn't named until after. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Rowlett[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. His acting credits (from IMDB) all show him as an uncredited extra, with unnamed roles like "Groomsman" or "Student". Natg 19 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator asserts and I also found with my own research, no sources suggest roles (on camera or off) of any note. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @Non-Dropframe. Quis separabit? 18:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm not certain, this looks like it's a 'too soon' case since his career is just getting going. I also agree with the above comments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Non notable actor, No evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. None of these roles are substantial enough to be considered notable roles. The only ones that are listed anywhere show that they were stand-in, non-named roles, so I have to assume that the non-listed ones are the same and are likely uncredited parts. This actor just isn't notable yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 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 Keep as this could've been relisted again but as it seems he is notable and the article may only need cleaning, we should start with that first and talk again later if needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Hajos[edit]

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

This article had a CSD G10 tag but it didn't appear to be an attack page. Additionally, the subject (an account User:Zghajos) requested its deletion. But since the subject is considered a notable figure in chemistry, I wanted to have a discussion about whether it should be kept, deleted or just improved. It has more than its share of citation needed tags. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN ON OCTOBER 2, 2015 DUE TO ALL THE STRONGLY WORDED CRITICISM THAT HAS HIT THE ZOLTAN HAJOS ARTICLE SOME TIME IN JULY, 2015 I HAVE TO APPEAL TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF WIKIPEDIA TO COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DELETE THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE WRITTEN IN ENGLISH ABOUT ME (ZOLTAN HAJOS). IT IS HIGHLY UNUNUSUAL TO SEE A WRITE UP FULL OF EDITORIAL COMMENTS. I DON'T EVEN DARE TO CORRECT THE REFERENCE STATING THAT THE HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION WAS IN JULY, 1956 AND THE STORY ABOUT HIJACKING WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ESCAPE OF THOUSANDS OF HUNGARIANS AFTER THE DEFEATED REVOLUTION OF OCTOBER 23, 1956 IN NOVEMBER, 1956. THESE ARE REFERENCES INSERTED BY A PERSON WHOSE ERRONEOUS WRITINGS EVIDENTLY FIT THE EDITORIAL POLICIES OF WIKIPEDIA. GREETINGS TO ALL, ZOLTAN HAJOS (NOT AN ALIAS!)Zghajos (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article a few years ago. Zoltan Hajos is one of the most famos organic chemists and inventors in industry and academia of the 20th century world wide. In July 2015 user Leprof 7272 has added several comments to the article making me and Zoltan Hajos (born 3 March 1926 / SEE HIS COMMENTS ABOVE ON THIS PAGE) upset/angry. As a result Zoltan Hajos asked me to apply for deletion of the article. --Jü (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of Zoltan Hajos dated 2 October 2015 (see above) und my statement of 6 October 2015 (see above) has been copied from the discussion page of the lemma Zoltan Hajos to this deletion discussion. --Jü (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like this individual has done some good work, and made a serious contribution in terms of the Hajos–Parrish–Eder–Sauer–Wiechert reaction, and then there's a bunch of material that's dicey. I'd much rather this get deleted than otherwise. I wouldn't object, however, to a redirect situation where the article title and a bit of its contents gets moved over to the Hajos–Parrish–Eder–Sauer–Wiechert reaction page. The scientist, as a person, derives notability from the association with that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve/copyedit article. This famous chemist fulfills Wikipedia:Notability (academics) without any doubt. --Leyo 21:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean-up and protect. The WP:Deletion policy says: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Here we have a moderately well-known chemist. We should give some defference to his request, but if we can accomplish his and our aims together and keep the article, we should. I note in passing that the current mayor of Dunajská Streda in southern Slovakia is also named "Zoltan Hajos". --Bejnar (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject meets notability standards. He is eponymous both for a reaction for which we have on en.wp and also a chemical (de:Hajos-Wiechert-Keton). As an editorial opinion, I think much of the content is off-topic--extensive discussion of the notability of the reaction belongs on the reaction page except to the extent independent sources highlight this person's contributions--but that cleanup concern does not impact the viability of the article. Comments of certain work being "pioneering" need direct cites, not merely evidence of use of that work by others. Obviously all biographical material must be cited or removed. So trim it down to just the uncontentious (by the subject) or citable bio details, Wikipedia:Summary style for the key achivements that have their own articles, and secondary/tertiary-sourced commentary on any other work as available. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, SEMIPROTECT, ENFORCE BLP POLICY to make article satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable subject. I can see why someone may not appreciate all the tags. A tag-bomber has been at work here and carpet bombed the entire article. I have taken off much of the ugly repititious block tagging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up, and protect if needed, per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 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. Article's in a very shit state but notability does seem be be there...... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Poo Telling You?[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this was the first in a series of books. We might be able to rationalize making this into a series page rather than for the individual book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number one, it's a well-reviewed book, and number two ... pardon the pun ... it's sold almost 1/2 million copies, making it a bestseller. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as it currently seems notable and acceptable to me. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with number two, by Bearian, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Fifteen to One[edit]

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

Celebrity Fifteen to One is not an independent television program; it's merely a special week of shows of Fifteen to One that has aired sporadically.

WP:NOTINHERITED, and a handful of special episodes over the course of a season are not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article. AldezD (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion is similar to other "special week" game show episode lists, such as Celebrity Jeopardy! and Jeopardy! Kids Week.

As is the wording of the previous nominations. Keep: Easily meets WP:GNG. Considerable standalone coverage ([7][8][9]), many of which are recent ([10][11][12]). I should note that the AfDs you quote from are from nearly five years ago, and our notability guidelines have become more lenient since then. Finally, and this is fairly minor, but so far 12 episodes have been broadcast in five different years. Not a week...--Laun chba ller 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Launchballer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I haven't looked at the Celebrity Jeopardy! articles, so I have no idea if it is worth reinstation of those.--Laun chba ller 09:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fifteen to One. Contra Launchballer, I do not believe our notability guidelines have loosened over the past five years. But this isn't really a question of notability; there are unquestionably reliable sources that cover these specials. Rather, this is a question of topic identification: are special-edition variants of a longer-running TV show separate things unto themselves or are they part of the parent entity? I'm not certain that has a single correct answer in all cases, but here, at least, I believe the readers are better served with a single cohesive article. For the record, I hold the same opinion for the various branded Jeopardy! specials, and consider the precedent AFDs correctly decided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that in autumn 2013, AldezD and BenTvfan were removing Celebrity episode info from shows like The Chase, Pointless, Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Tipping Point, shows where there were concurrent civilian programmes citing WP:NOTSTATS and FANCRUFT AND LISTCRUFT. Why should we allow a page for Fifteen to One and not for the other shows. Some of these programmes have celebrity versions that are approximately the same length as Celebrity Fifteen to One. Also, using Vimeo snd YouTube links are risky for sources as they are copyrighted. What if Youtube takes it down, there is no more source. This is just observations66.130.12.185 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

On some weeks, the week's five civilian episodes have attained less viewers than the single celebrity edition at the end of the week. I believe that Celebrity Fifteen to One should have its own page because its history is a bit more expansive than that of Pointless Celebrities or Tipping Point: Lucky Stars, and as the Wikipedia article for Fifteen to One is significantly longer, I believe that including the information there would make the article too long. (As for my notability comments, my contributions history includes a several year break and in that break I have found that the threshold for articles passing AfC/surviving AfD has decreased since I've got back.)--Laun chba ller 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable, covered by Fifteen to One. No long entry is needed there, so WP:UNDUE shouldn't apply. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 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 no consensus. Requires separate discussions. We can't establish consensus for these topics as a group here. Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESR Technology[edit]

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

My searches found nothing good enough to suggest better improvement with the best links here and here. *NOTE: I'm also including a few other articles:

Current Communications Group (best search results I found are here, here and here)
ORS Direct (best results I found were here)
Alexander Autographs (best results I found were here, here, here and here).

There's simply nothing to suggest better improvement to any of these and with Alexander Autographs, all current news links are passing and minor mentions and although its items may be admirable and interesting there's no better coverage of Alexander Autographs themselves. I'm pinging involved users C.Fred and Gyrofrog (Alexander Autographs), Trivialist, Jayron32 and Eastmain and Cornellrockey (ORS Direct) and author Gary (Current Communications Group) SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexander Autographs (edit talk links history). I had suspected this was a promotional effort; see article's talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ESR Technology which I suspect to be a significant participant in the British nuclear industry. Delete the rest, which look thoroughly NN. I think we should deplore multiple nominations of unrelated subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron I favored this rather than making several nominations that would risk "no consensus" to no attention at all, although not explicitly related, I consider these to be unimprovable (and FWIW, it gives a chance for the viewer to look at other company noms). I tried to make this nomination as simple as possible. Also, suspicion of being a significant participant may be good but it will not improve the article's current state. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I can tell there's no good connection between these four companies, so why WP:BUNDLE, SwisterTwister? This to me looks pretty much as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial that DGG closed on the note "as a technical no-consensus, because its impossible to try to form a proper consensus about 5 disparate people in one nomination. Please renominate separately." -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to agree that this should be separated. To nominate in a group like this makes the arguments inconclusive. - Pmedema (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 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. Sandstein 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felicism[edit]

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

A neologism with no known use in RS. Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language must be adaptive by nature or fail to be sufficient to articulate one's thoughts. As vacancies are discovered terms will take their place. Therefore the complaint that 'felicism' is a neologism is fair. However, if it can be agreed that there is a sufficient vacancy in the English language, namely a contrasting term for cynicism, then a term will eventually fill the void. The quickest and easiest way for a word to make the transition from a neologism to an accepted term is with the aid of widely read internet sources e.g. Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes.carlos (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, Wikipedia is not a platform for a term to make a transition from a neologism to a widely circulated word. Read WP:NOTNEO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 06:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEO, for a word that was coined last week. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deance Wyatt[edit]

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

All hits on Google News and Books are merely passing mentions. 2 TV appearances, 2 short films and minor roles in 4 films don't establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there's simply no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability just isn't established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:45, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oli White[edit]

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

This has already been deleted a couple of times (via BLP PROD); a speedy was declined by C.Fred because this one article was supplied. But in addition to that, there's not much else, besides stuff like this, another shout-out on a blog (not an RS or a notable publication, as far as I can tell). In other words, trivial mentions, not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Give it a chance to un-stub. Checkingfax (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't know what that means. You have every opportunity, certainly for the next seven days, to add reliable sources to the article to prove the subject's notability. At any rate, this discussion is here for you to argue that the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Along those lines, I need to point out that this article had been created in April and June, and it was deleted both times as an expired PROD BLP (no reliable sources found). The article is making progress, in that there's at least one source now (which is why I declined CSD A7); however, since the original creation in April, somebody has had five months to look for reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - See: WP:ATD for alternatives to deletion. Checkingfax (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reliable sources that are not just trivial mentions. There will always be a fair amount of information available online about any popular YouTuber, but sources must be reliable and at least somewhat substantial to meet Wikipedia's criteria. I think that there are currently not enough reliable sources mentioning White to warrant an article, and I have no prejudice about the article existing if more reliable sources can be found or are made. With regards to giving the article a chance to be expanded, the opportunity is there and waiting. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thine Antique Pen. With the greatest respect, I actually cannot believe you nominated this article for speedy deletion. Have you read WP:A7? How could you seriously, possibly think this meets the strict criteria given to exclude community discussion? AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: I think that you've slightly misinterpreted the situation, and yes, I have read WP:CSD. I did A7 the article shortly after its creation, after I had done a quick search about White; this search brought up a number of social media links and I did not dig any further, wrongly presuming White to be "just another YouTuber". Upon the discovery of the Huffington Post article, A7 did not apply whatsoever as significance was now demonstrated, and discussion would be the only solution. I admit that I was erroneous to not look further, although I stand by my rationale here about the notability of White, and consider these newly unearthed mentions of White to not demonstrate notability. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I respect your honesty. AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a number of other sources to the article. Regarding Ten Eighty magazine I generally find it a WP:RS regarding YouTube and non-tabloid in style. AusLondonder (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added sources from Marketing magazine, The Guardian, Huffington Post, Ten Eighty magazine and Charity Today. I question, therefore, if the nom User:Drmies, followed WP:BEFORE in searching for sources, prior to stating "there's not much else" and "trivial mentions, not notable by our standards"? I also wonder if the other delete voters above tried to find sources? AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot, pal. Surely you had a look at WP:AGF in the few months you've been with us. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The references you added (and that did not show up when I searched Google, thank you very much) from The Guardian and the marketing magazine establish that White is one of two people hired by McDonalds to do some advertising on YouTube. That by itself does not make for notability, and the problem is that neither of the sources actually discuss White--they just name him. Same with the cancer stuff: he is mentioned as one of a bunch of people, with no discussion of him and what he's doing. Plus, that's reported by Cancer Research UK, not by an independent source. In other words, what we have here are a few more mentions--not in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way did I accuse you of bad faith? I simply asked a question. I certainly would not suggest you are being careless with the truth, but it does seem strange that these sources appeared only to me. AusLondonder (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

If you had been in as many AfD discussion as I, you would not be surprised by that, not at all. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:AGF, I certainly have read it. I am sure you've read it recently, before invoking it, because the page states "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of such" AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now simply to wait for a better article so feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion, User:SwisterTwister. AusLondonder (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder I would think so as WP:TNT because although the article is currently sourced and could be worse, it could be better and I would rather wait for the "better" to come. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TNT "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as per above non notable youtuber, The sources are IMHO pretty weak and my searches come up with nothing but mentions, I suggest Salting as it's been created & deleted 4 times in the space of this year alone. Isn't notable this year, Won't be notable next year ... Infact I can't see this bloke ever being notable. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you come to the wrong discussion, User:Davey2010? AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No ? ... But I'm gathering you're going to badger me about how I'm completely wrong ?... Yeah no disrespect but save it for someone who cares. –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only do you write bullshit you are also arrogant and fail to understand the point of deletion discussions. Don't bother contributing if you won't rationally discuss. AusLondonder (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's less bullshit and more the truth but we'll agree to disagree!, I'm honestly more than happy to discuss my reasons but you've badgered everyone on this AFD so far and so not matter what the fuck I'll say you'll disagree and say I'm utterly wrong so it's honestly pointless in debating it with you isn't it?, You think it should be kept and I think otherwise so lets just leave it at that & move on. –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of demonstration that he is a significant person. Other than subscriber counts, his biggest verifiable claim in the article is that he ate a cactus. With this article under the microscope for two weeks, I don't see improvement that justifies keeping it. Obviously this can be revisited in the future if his future activities make him notable, but I don't see where he's crossed that threshold yet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, merely being listed or tangentially mentioned by some reliable sources isn't really enough to make one truly notable. It would be one thing if him eating a cactus was the subject of a specific Huffington Post article about him alone or him as well as just a few other people, details existing, and that was again cited by a follow-up article that found him noteworthy. That's just not the case. I think this article should be deleted. I also concur with C.Fred that this matter can be returned to if his future activities are of notice. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - He is indeed a known youtuber with more than a million subscribers but like many youtubers he is not that exceptional. He needs to do something even more significant. There are hardly any article that acknowledge something he had done. Although he has been featured in some articles, those articles can't stand alone to support the creation of this page. I agree with C.Fred and CoffeeWithMarkets. If he should do something more worthy in the future only then shall we keep this page. Hamnus (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because it's Oli White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.92.184 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the above !vote from the talkpage to here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches do not turn up enough to show how they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's sources consist solely of webpages that detail page view stats, and trivial mentions. Page view statistics do not constitute notability and are utterly routine in nature (every YouTube account would have such databases), and the third-party sources are trivial mentions that do not warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria A. Morales[edit]

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

No hits for this person on Google News and Books. She was part of 3 films, 2 of which were short ones. No encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another example of an actress who is not significant and outstanding and there's simply no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:49, 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 redirect to Deltora_Quest_(series)#Bonus_books. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Deltora Book of Monsters[edit]

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

Reference book to a marginally notable series, published as part of the series. Might be merged to one of the series articles, but as a standalone title it is not notable. Mikeblas (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to Deltora series as there's simply not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deltora_Quest_(series)#Bonus_books. I can find nothing to show that this companion book is notable enough for its own article. Like many companion pieces for long running series (regardles of popularity), it looks like its release was overlooked by the majority of reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 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 Moot. The nomination was blanked by its creator, so probably withdrawn, and nobody advocates deletion. Sandstein 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. No reason given for why this article was requested to be deleted and I can't see why it should either. --Fixuture (talk) 17:26, 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 keep. Article's been up 3 weeks and quite honestly I think the next !vote would be a keep so no point dragging it on, Overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juxtaposition Arts[edit]

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

This is an interesting one because there's quit e a bit of coverage suggesting it is quite well known own locally and may be locally notable, my best searches were here, here, here, here. Pinging Meatsgains and author SusanLesch. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the heads up. DeAnnna Cummings is very well known. If I remember right, JUXTA is related to Intermedia Arts. Perhaps the two can be combined. I'm sorry I am not familiar with the subject and so cannot volunteer to expand the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The article needs more reliable sources but some can be found here and here. . This organization has received more than just passing mention in many of these sources. ABF99 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:23, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design technology[edit]

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

This article has been unreferenced since 2011, and I can't find a single coherent source that shows that it's a notable discipline in its own right. Slashme (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(revert to) Redirect Design and Technology per Gibmetal77 (talk · contribs)'s move (diff). Apparently more or less the same thing, and sources vastly favor the name with "and". For procedural information, it is DezignViz (talk · contribs) that voided Gibmetal77's initial three-year-standing redirect and major contributor to some bulk of this version. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it could be properly sourced and better written. What we have here are two different topics all together. Design and Technology is an educational catch-phrase used for the course-work that produces what is also known as computer literacy, unfortunately Design and Technology also uses the shortened form "Design Technology". In removing the original redirection, DezignViz did so stating it was in favor of a more universal definition of the term. But what was created seems to be an article about the industrial process of using machines, primarily computers, in the design process. As such it is somewhat of a subset of Computer-aided technologies, but broader than just Computer-aided design and including Computer-aided industrial design and Manufacturing process management. There are a large number of books on product design technology. Such as Knowledge Intensive Design Technology edited by Jonathan C. Borg et al.; Satellite Communications: System and Its Design Technology edited by Takashi Iida; Food Industry Design, Technology and Innovation by Helmut Traitler et al., just to name the first three I found. And, no, aside from reading the preface to Knowledge Intensive Design Technology, I didn't do more than glance at them to make sure that they were on point. --Bejnar (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and Keep or Delete for now First I disagree with merging this into Design and Technology That article is about academic programs geared around design and technology. Its the difference between having an article about Information Technology and an article about course programs that teach IT. And IMO the topic definitely rates its own article. I know of some excellent research on this topic. Unfortunately, I can't recall the names of the researchers now but its definitely a worthwhile topic. There are commonalities across various kinds of design tools: CAD, CAM, CASE, Video editing, Animation, etc. So I think this rates an article but I agree the current article is not up to Wikipedia standards, no references it reads like someone's opinions. So if it can't be improved then I recommend deleting for now. I'll see if I can remember some of the research on this and post a follow up if I can. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:13, 13 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. Pretty close to being pure spam, anyhow. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robotc[edit]

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

This article fails the general notability guideline. It has no independent, reliable sources. Sunfoo (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it has applications, but it's almost word-for-word the promotional material and citing said. Maybe it should get a mention as a flavor of C, but I agree that the article, as it is, has to go. 71.121.161.138 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this has existeds since March 2009 and if there's not much improvement, this can be restarted later as my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:22, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Ørjan Sæle[edit]

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

Businessperson who has gained some media attention at times, but all in all the ventures he has been involved in do not seem to be notable generally or in its field. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like the business-related things that he's been involved with are more notable than he is. Even then, it's questionable. I think the article should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:57, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanctuary (Derby)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent to prove notability. The citations here are mostly primary. JMHamo (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, but not its content, which I split off from Pride Park as it accounted for over 50% of that article. I agree that the references aren't great at present, but I'm going to have a look and see how they could be improved. I think coverage of the abandoned scheme to build a cycle track over part of it may provide decent sources: there's this BBC article, for example. Jellyman (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I stumbled across the AfD discussion in time. I created much of the content on the LNR within the original Pride Park article. I don't feel responsible for a lack of content on other elements of the Pride Park article, which definitely do needs expanding. Regarding Notability, partial destruction of The Sanctuary Bird Reserve and LNR would have set a significant national precedent by being the first LNR in the UK ever to have been destroyed by the same local authority that originally declared it as a LNR, had the development plans not been challenged by the initiation of a judicial review . This could have had major implications for nature reserves across England and put their future security, as places for people and for wildlife, in doubt. My recent edits (and inclusion of a quote from a wildlife trust) have attempted to reflect why the campaign and judicial review action was of such national significance. I don't think the article Jellyman created from the Pride Park article reflected this fact, so I have added secondary references to support this. I should also declare a WP:COI as I was involved in some of the activity to help save the LNR from harm. Perhaps others are better placed to ensure a neutral POV, but I hope the national significance of the legal action and the implications for all of England's protected Local Nature Reserves has come through. I would argue that The Sanctuary is a signicant element of Pride Park, and is notable for the unusual threat of destruction surrounding it. I think it merits an expanded section within the Pride Park article, or, as now, its own article. So I go with Do Not Delete Parkywiki (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pride Park for now I suppose until a more solid article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:22, 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 withdrawn, although this could be better it seems to be somewhat acceptable for now. If deletion is needed later, we can talk about it then. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam McArthur[edit]

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

Article appears to be a résumé. References consist of a list of places where the subject is mentioned as a cast member, not to places which discuss him in a non-trivial context. Has not been the recipient of any national awards or news coverage. Does not appear to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. See nomination withdrawal below. KDS4444^Talk 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Borderline keep~~Keep Starring role in Star vs. the Forces of Evil, the top animated show on Disney XD. Has appeared at Comic-Con 2015 for its related panel. Another lead role should seal this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Concur: a second lead role would meet the requirements of the notability guidelines mentioned above. Until then, however, the subject still fails to meet them.KDS4444 ^Talk 07:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Would Scooby-Doo: Spooky Camp Stories count? It was a extra on the direct-to-video Scooby-Doo! Camp Scare but it is a live-action role and he is the star in the set of video shorts. It was referenced in the promotional material for The LeBrons AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being an "extra" is not being in a "lead role". Performances as an extra do not count towards Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. KDS4444^Talk 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a performance AS an extra. It's a lead performance: the on-screen camp counselor who narrates the stories. in a video that was included as a DVD extra. He stars in it, and there is coverage on it by review sites. The problem is that the video extra itself isn't Wikipedia-level notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found a lot more stuff about him when I search under "adam mcarthur martial arts". He is a martial arts champion and has been the subject of two martial arts documentaries that have shown on PBS. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star vs. the Forces of Evil I suppose rather than delete as although it seems he's only had a 13 episodes. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (transparency: created it) a redirect would not be appropriate since he has done other roles besides Star Vs, notably Star Wars, Puss in Boots and Final Fantasy. How can we improve it to not appear like a resume, as OP claims? I believe that is called "cinematography" in other actor's articles. Ranze (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not too worried about the resume part. I can give it a decent makeover with more sources if the article is kept. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Except that in order to justify being kept, it needs more reliable non-trivial sources! If you have them, they should be added now, not once the discussion is over, yes??) KDS4444^Talk 15:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question would be, Is he notable for his roles other than in Star vs.? If the answer is "No" (i.e., there is no evidence of substantive independent published work discussing him in relation to that work, regardless of whether or not his name is mentioned in them), then this does not qualify as adding to his notability. KDS4444^Talk 16:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of in depth coverage of Adam McArthur. Fails WP:NACTOR. To answer KDS4444's question: If Adam McArthur is not known for his other roles, then no that does not add to his notability. Unless someone is assuming the conclusion. --Bejnar (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the expansion of references the article has now received, I would like to withdraw my nomination, however this does not have great bearing as other editors have made good faith suggestions/ support for both redirecting and deletion.KDS4444 ^Talk 17:29, 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. Sandstein 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlights I-III + Tacoma Center 1600[edit]

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

Article's subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. Is self-released, has not been the subject of significant news coverage, has not received any awards, references consist of user-reviews without editorial oversight and one ref. to the band's website. KDS4444^Talk 16:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this does not come close to meeting WP:NALBUMS. I think the same is true for the band itself and its other releases, but I'll take it one AfD at a time. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as nom, I also agree with NewYorkActuary's statement. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informatics Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Chamith (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Chamith (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, it doesn't generate significant coverage from multiple, reliable secondary sources like other notable degree awarding institutions do. As Wikipedia:Notability#cite note-3 suggests "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". This is the only secondary source (that I could find) which specifically speaks about the subject. This mentions about a scholarship programs while this speaks about an event. Almost all of these sources contain WP:PEA terms and doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. And it seems like Sunday Times is the only secondary source reporting about the subject. -- Chamith (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the information in the article, it does not grant regular degrees; it only gives honorary degrees and post-graduate certificates. Am I reading this right? Bearian (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting that from? I see BSc (Hons) and MSc. Nothing honorary there. Or are you maybe misinterpreting BSc (Hons)? It means Bachelor of Science with Honours (i.e. a standard science degree in the British-originated system), not honorary. Its degrees are accredited by another institution, but they're still full degrees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 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. Sandstein 19:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Dial[edit]

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

This is a separate nomination from the first one which was a bundled nomination. I found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement and the article looks less than comfortably comprehensible and has barely been touched since the subject started it himself in March 2007. Pinging Bgwhite and Esprit15d. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, only really able to find these: [13] - The Wild Times an interview with him about his sound and the music scene in Hamburg, [14] - The Easy review of one of his plays - Carroll Gardens Aborning, not enough to rescue article from deletion.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO - no non-trivial reliable articles about him, from what I can tell. mikeman67 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to have good enough coverage. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Very little participation, but the one "keep" opinion is so weak I can't give it much weight. It asserts that GNG is met, but does not explain on the basis of which sources, and its assertion that "being a television presenter is notable" is not based on any guideline or practice. Sandstein 18:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Nazemson[edit]

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

She hardly seems notable especially for simply being best known for the on-air event gaining attention from YouTube and my best search results this, this, this and a few results with browser. SwisterTwister talk 17:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. For her television work, and other events. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability in the article and I fail to find any realiable sources that indicate that she is more than yet another TV host. (The claim made in the article that she "became world news" for vomiting is clearly preposterous and not basis for any serious notability claim.) It doesn't seem as if the game show she is the host of is notable - not that notability is inherited, it isn't, but if a programme is a minor show without notability it clearly indicates that the host also fails notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 14:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a television presenter is notable. (if being just a television presenter was reason for deletion then we would have to delete several other articles with less notability than this one). Bonadea seems to throw random opinions around without the knowledge about the shows nor the person.. We dont delete articles based on an opinion be delete it per Wikipedia guidelines and this one is passing WP:GNG. Simply because a person is perhaps most famous for a worldwide reporting disgusting incident is not a reason for deletion either, if doing something disgusting would be reason for deletion then we would have to reevaluate the substance of several hundred of crime bios etc etc. Eva Nazemson has made herself a name in Sweden for hosting game shows. that is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey W. Schroeder[edit]

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

He hardly seems notable apart from being Chief Administrative Officer at Goldman Sachs and my best results this, this, this and this. Pinging Graeme Bartlett who accepted this article in October 2008. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I accepted because of the two references, which just barely showed notability. But the person does not seem to have had anything more written on them. I don't think this will be any big loss to our readers if it disappears. Thanks for splitting this out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Almost certainly a WP:PERMASTUB article. mikeman67 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Jewelers[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP notability of an article that has a long standing problem with undisclosed paid editors. Citations listed are purely local quotidian things like store openings, or non-notable vague industry awards. If there's some claim to notability that's been missed, this is a good opportunity for WP:TNT. Brianhe (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Paid editors?! Sounds pretty shady. Also: WP:SOAPBOX Ceosad (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now although a better article may be made later as I easily found links at Books, News, browser, Highbeam and Newspapers Archive. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 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 Merge and mention at Stok as this seems best for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stok buddha statue[edit]

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

Under-construction statue NewMutants (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stok. Notability is questionable -- can't find any non-trivial mention in reliable sources. utcursch | talk 12:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 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. Unopposed request. Sandstein 18:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spottoon[edit]

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

Article was twice deleted on CSD grounds, recreated both times. In the interest of settling the issue, I'm putting it here for community input and/or SALTing if the material is judged to be non-needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 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! 03:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would appear that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 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 withdraw and keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children[edit]

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

The notability of this article is questionable since the two references do not establish the wide-spread application of this test, only its development. I also question whether or not this article contains original research or if the article creator has a close connection to this topic. If these questions can be answered, I can remove my nomination that this article be deleted. Bfpage |leave a message 03:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart when better as although I found links here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdrawn my request for deletion since, obviously, this topic is notable and should be included in the encyclopedia. SwisterTwister has done a great job in expanding the references. Nicely done! Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 22:23, 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 Keep as this seems notable and acceptable with its current state (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind and Madness in Ancient Greece[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep no wp:before. please review notability process before nominating other articles. deletion is not a process for article improvement. Duckduckstop (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book meets the first criterion of WP:NBOOK. There are three non-trivial, scholarly reviews that are cited on the article itself: [15][16][17]. NBOOK requires only two independent reviews. --Biblioworm 17:55, 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 it is notable and acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Common Sense[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some evidence to show that this book, especially the expanded version, was considered to be pretty landmark. I'll add what I can, but this needs someone more familiar with the work to flesh it out properly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to help out with this. The author's page is pretty lean as well and while this could probably be merged, I'd like to ensure that this is the best outlet, since this looks like it may be notable enough for its own article, as the author was arrested for the expanded version of the original work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Hard call as opposed to just merging into the Foote article. I'd argue that these two cites [18] [19] discuss the book itself in detail (as opposed to Foote) and meet criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT Samir 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... in defense of the nominator this book is a pretty difficult search. I'm having to go through long journal articles by hand to find specific mentions, whereas sometimes with particularly long journal articles I can just use a word search while in the PDF. I'm finding ways to get around that, but it's slow going. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Tokyogirl79 has done a good job improving it. KateWishing (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 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 Keep as this seems notable and acceptable with its current state (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malignant: How Cancer Becomes Us[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep no wp:before. please review notability process before nominating other articles. deletion is not a process for article improvement. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 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. Sandstein 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RunUO[edit]

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

Non-notable video game software with only primary source coverage. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.) (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (not mentioned in Ultima Online). If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While I do try to give gaming topics broad latitude (since they tend not to be covered in the ivory tower sources guidelines evidently favor), and though I think WP:Notability_(video_games) is pathologically narrow, this still doesn't qualify for essential notability. There is just no source past the creator/developer's own online resources.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now I suppose until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Montaclair[edit]

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

No evidence that this person passes WP:PROF. shoy (reactions) 14:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as I only found a few links here and there including what seemed to be some at Scholar so we can likely delete this for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be the "average professor". Sources are all web. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as it seems obvious here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. Balsara[edit]

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

I think WP:BIO1E applies here: sportsman known for playing a single match. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NCRICKET. If there's a dispute with WP:NCRICKET it should be tackled over there, rather than by deleting one off cricket articles.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ping user:Phil Bridger and user:Bobo192 deprodder and creator respectively.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Samuel J. Howard. I am not against changing the policy, but I think that discussion needs to take place in the suitable forum. Harrias ^talk 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CRIN requirements. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Meets WP:NCRICKET, and therefore should not have been put up for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Flight 110[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really a textbook example of WP:NOTNEWS. --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aer Lingus#Incidents and accidents. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable incident per WP:AIRCRASH. Also WP:NOTNEWS SempreVolando (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable per [[WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Aircraft maintenance issue; no loss of life or loss of aircraft. Edison (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering the aircraft (EI-LBR), actually operated on behalf of Aer Lingus by a different airline and flight crew on a different AOC, was back in the air the following night and has operated no fewer than 14 subsequent flights without incident. Hardly a serious occurrence. SempreVolando (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entireely non notable, no significant coverage. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other contributors. Aircraft suffered a mechanical fault, landed safely, was repaired and returned to service. Routine event, not in any way notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article can probably be used in a merge in the Aer Lingus page as a written off accident. Adog104 (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]
- Comment But it isn't a written off accident. The aircraft is still flying....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other contributors. Let's hurry up and get this done. This isn't even a writeoff. Yny501 (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. The plane flew out the next morning! It just needed a minor repair. There was some potential that this might have become a major incident. But it didn't. No need for an article. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As indicated by other editors, this incident does not have encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable accident. Nothing special about it, no deaths or injuries etc. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although interesting as it may be, there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable as shown above, not worth a mention in other articles either. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noticeable, only one minor injury doesn't make this article noticeable.--Planecrashexpert (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per above - Non notable aircraft incident. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 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 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secure image encryption technique for wireless network[edit]

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

Rejected speedy, rejected prod

Very new article so some WP:AGF has to apply, but this is a hugely broad conjunction of three notable (and already covered) aspects with nothing whatsoever to make their combination additionally notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made as I found nothing convincingly good. Pinging 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - encryption technique from a very recent 2015 paper, with no citations yet[20] Unable to find any WP:reliable sources mentioning the technique. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is very basic with only one reference. Its also not very clear. I don't see any explanation of if or why the only technique mentioned (block based transmission) is well suited for images or wireless networks in particular. Perhaps anything that is worth saving could be folded into this article: Cryptographic protocol but I agree this article should be deleted. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:44, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Tripathi[edit]

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

Reality show contestant with no individual recordings on credit fails WP:MUSICBIO. Few stage shows here and there singing songs of other artists is not notability as such. Side note: The article is suspected of being created from COI editors/PR agency/cooperative editing - COI Noticeboard entry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took this among others to COIN for an investigation. The article suffered from a terrible case of reference padding and misuse of sources that took a while to clean up (see the history). On removing all that I was left with this stub that didn't show much notability and I couldn't find anything that did either. I'd suggested to Dharmadhyaksha to take a look as he may be able to find something, but I guess that there wasn't much to find. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless better sources can actually be found, this can be deleted for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erica McDermott[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable yet; way too soon. Quis separabit? 01:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The Fighter where she's mentioned as although she has an award for Best Fight for The Fighter, there's not much aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as technically an unsourced BLP (IMDb isn't a source!), Anyway no evidence of notability fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NA1000's findings, I somehow couldn't find bugger all but maybe I screwed something up somewhere ... God knows anyway keep as notability is there afterall .–Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Sources include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4] ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Scituate mom finds a new role". The Boston Globe.
^ "Erica McDermott talks career at 'Story Behind Her Success' event". The Boston Globe.
^ "Local actress stunned by Depp's transformation in 'Black Mass'". The Patriot Ledger.
^ "Scituate mom gets big part in major motion picture". The Herald News.
^ "Just who are the sisters in 'The Fighter'?". Los Angeles Times. (about four short paragraphs, newsblog).

Keep - As stated above, this actress has received the kind of reliable source coverage that we need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced and fails WP:NBAND. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 02:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I couldn't find any independent secondary sources to satisfy either criterion. The sources provided in the first AfD are either dead, or don't appear to be secondary and peer-reviewed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - I don't see anything here that addresses the previous AfD's consensus, and specifically the sources presented by Michig (none of which are lost or truly dead: Hybrid Magazine, Static Multimedia, Splendidezine, Ear Candy Mag, Left off the Dial, Mammoth Press, AltPress). That they were not integrated in the article years after is an editorial cleanup problem, not one of notability or deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't feel that the sources that exist are sufficient. Most of the things I found in the first AfD are not good enough sources to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With those sources it would be a weak keep if at all but as my searches found nothing better, I'll go with delete for now as there's simply not much else (feel free to draft and userfy if needed). Pinging previous commenter TenPoundHammer. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, come to think of it, most of the reviews may or may not be WP:RS and I'm finding literally nothing else but a handful of reviews. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 25 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, Sandstein 11:13, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayempur High School[edit]

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

Weak article conveying nothing beyond the bare (and unsourced) existence of this school. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Redirect to Kayempur~~ per standard procedure. Established mainstream high school. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For far too long, WP:GNG has not been applied to any articles relating to the Indian sub continent. We should not do this. Even articles on tiny Indian villages and implicitly notable high schools should still be required to have some sourcing, per WP:V.

Do not redirect, as we have nothing to redirect to. Nor is it a lexically difficult leap from "Kayempur High School" to "Kayempur". Leave that sort of this to search engine matchers, not hard-coded redirects. (My position here would be different for schools that weren't simply suffixes of their district.) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to WP:NHS Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHS actually states "Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability." Note the need for verifiability, which this article fails. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's weak, it conveys little, and I would have preferred that it had never been created, but it was, it's a secondary school, and it now cites a reliable source as to its existence, so let's move on. Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldbruce has summed it up well. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kayempur - Worldbruce is bang on The article is aboslute shite on so many levels but at the end of the day it's been here 3 years and it's only been sourced now (and it's only 1 source!), I appreciate sources elsewhere aren't as great as in the UK/US but this won't ever be improved and in the next year or so it'll be left to rot and then renominated, I can't !vote Keep on an article I know won't ever be improved nor sourced, I know SCHOOLOUTCOMES states high schools should be kept but I'm sure we can bend the rules now & again. –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well If everyone wants it kept I may aswell follow everyone like a sheep , Not entirely convinced on it being kept but whatever. –Davey2010^Talk 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with redirect per outcomes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly seems to exist and that's enough for a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that second schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. I suppose we could spend a few hours parsing Hindi-language sources and battling over whether they are sufficient or not, but why? The rule of thumb on schools saves us from wasting time on such debates. If a high school is out there, like a populated place, or a mountain, or a major highway, it should be part of WP. Carrite (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hamilton (artist)[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia, does not meet WP:ARTIST or the WP:GNG. There's coverage of her house in a blog source, but little else. Note: possible COI problem. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. No decent third party sources. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable artist. Quis separabit? 18:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Samf4u (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 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 merge to 2002 in WEC. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WEC 5[edit]

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

This article cites no sources.Kevlar (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2002 in WEC Nothing to show this event is notable so better to merge it into the broader article.Mdtemp (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this may be best. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is still another MMA event article with no significant independent coverage. However, merging seems preferable to deletion. Papaursa (talk) 17:47, 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 merge to 2007 in WEC. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WEC 26[edit]

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

This article cites no sources.Kevlar (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2007 in WEC Article has no sources or indication that this was a notable event.Mdtemp (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this may be best. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merging this unsourced article into an omnibus article seems more useful than outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 17:45, 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 merge to 2009 in World Victory Road. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku no Ran 2009[edit]

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

This article cites no sources.Kevlar (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2009 in World Victory Road This article has no sources and nothing to show it's a notable event. I think a merge is the right thing to do.Mdtemp (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this may be best. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article has no sources, but a merge/redirect seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 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. Redirect at editors' discretion. Sandstein 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pride The Best Vol.3[edit]

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

This article cites no sources.Kevlar (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources and gives no indication why this was a significant event.Mdtemp (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one likely unless it can actually be improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2002 in Pride FC Doesn't deserve its own article. Event fails WP:NEVENT and lacks any significant independent coverage, but a redirect seems preferable to outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 17:41, 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. Sandstein 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scosche Industries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I hope we can get a full consensus with this obvious delete of a current article and I found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but simply nothing to suggest better improvement. I considered speedying as this is a speedy and PROD-worthy but it is good to have nomination in case of G4 later. Either way this has certainly not changed since starting in February 2009. Pinging the only still active users Widefox and MelanieN and maybe RCHM (I'm not sure how active this one still is). SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious promo article, not obviously notable. Per WP:COI "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships.". (and if interested, I'm promoting my essay WP:BOGOF) Widefox; talk 08:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping prev AfD folk: User:Gene93k User:RightCowLeftCoast User:MelanieN. Widefox; talk 18:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Widefox I pinged the most active and interested users I saw and I considered RightCowLeftCpast but they seem to be less active now and Gene93k hardly ever comments (mostly for pornography AfDs) and you'll notice I pinged MelanieN as it is. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, was assuming it was article editors, didn't even remember I was the nom on the prev AfD. Regards Widefox; talk 21:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article has been unreferenced since its inception, and in a search I found no significant coverage about the company itself, so it fails WP:CORP. It is listed at Hoover's, but it is a bare listing; there is no information to base an article on. On the other hand, the company's products do get reviewed by credible sources; I found product reviews in PC Magazine, cnet, and the Huffington Post. This suggests that the company's products may be notable. So I am a bit on the fence. If the result here is keep, somebody ping me and I will add some of these references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mullen[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Simione001 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:39, 6 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) 16:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON as per above. YoungIreland (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the time being, subject fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. While subject is signed to a club in a WP:FPL, we must also invoke WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he plays, deletion review and improvement would be appropriate. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league Spiderone 17:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – for the same reasons everyone else has stated —Eccy89 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey D'Shon Collins[edit]

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

No significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Also no indication of passing WP:ARTIST. Staberinde (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as insufficiently notable performer. Quis separabit? 03:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recess either way by deletion or not because he was voicing one of the main characters of Recess so he is obviously going to be best known for this. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say it's borderline but I think he passes WP:ACTOR. He had starring roles in at least two TV shows (Danny Phantom & Recess) and starred in a few theatrical movies. He got a few Young Artist Award noms which isn't much but it's there. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ENT. Significant voice roles in Danny Phantom and Recess, the latter of which earned him concurrent Young Artist noms (which got lumped in with films). Both are in his youth, and he's not done much lately, but his article is notable if redone properly, not written like IMDB. — Wylie pedia 10:36, 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! 03:48, 29 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) 05:34, 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. Sandstein 18:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable icons[edit]

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

Non-notable technique. The only other references I can find to it are other papers by the same author (who, AFAICT, is also the author of the article). Kolbasz (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 23 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! 03:47, 29 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) 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of "Inflatable Icons" is an idea only ever explored in the work of one individual, but the topic of creating 3D images from 2D ones probably deserves an article somewhere and could mention the "Inflatable Icons" paper. Antrocent (♫♬) 06:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Turn Into Draft - This looks like it would ideally be a re-direct over to some other page that explores the general concept of making 2D images into 3D (it might have a weird name like "3Difying"). The general topic could be notable, but this specific article that we have here really isn't. I think shifting it into 'draft' form might be a good idea. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:30, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English Language Teachers' Society[edit]

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

Non-notable with primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources found about this organization. ABF99 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 22 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! 03:43, 29 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) 05:34, 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. As unopposed... Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice Of Human Justice[edit]

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

3 trivial mentions on News, O on News, virtually nothing on books, A few mentions on Scholar, where the highest cite count is a whopping 5. Zero on Highbeam, and JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 24 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! 03:42, 29 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) 05:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 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. The question of redirecting from this title is left to editorial discretion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hananim[edit]

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

Replace with redirect to Haneullim. Page is essentially the same subject matter as Haneullim. There are apparently some differences (that I don't fully understand), but these can be more fully explained in the Haneullim article. Bazonka (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because the article is partially & badly translated to the point it is essentially nonsense--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 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! 03:36, 29 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) 05:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore redirect as this article is hardly acceptable and would need to be restarted. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 13 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 Galaxy groups and clusters. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy cloud[edit]

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

irrelevant and non verifiable/notable Dan6233^(talk) 03:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if this is a notable term, but it seems verifiable as having been used in academic articles: here is, for example, a 1976 ApJ paper on the Coma I galaxy cloud. --Mark viking (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is quite vague and there are few papers I found which use this term. I don't know what a galaxy cloud is either; if it is a term for galaxy cluster then redirect to the galaxy cluster article. Otherwise, I'm not sure. --189.25.194.113 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I pinged Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to see if anyone would be willing to come take a look. shoy (reactions) 20:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched through ADS and Scholar and couldn't find much other than the paper above. Lots of references to "Galactic clouds", referring to gas clouds in our galaxy, but not much else as far as I can see. Sam Walton (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is a term that never really caught on and is not commonly used today. You could make a case for notability, although the article does a poor job of it in its current state. If it is kept then the article should probably make clear that the term is essentially obsolete and doesn't fit well with modern knowledge of the large-scale structure of the universe. Lithopsian (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~galaxy cluster~~ galaxy groups and clusters. I did manage to find a handful of articles that use the term e.g. 2013MNRAS.429.2677K, but it's certainly not common. Mostly this gets confused with 'Galactic cloud', a molecular cloud within the Milky Way galaxy, or 'galactic clouds', molecular clouds in other galaxies. The use for structures bigger than galaxy groups but smaller than galaxy clusters is not widely used. No need for a separate article on it - one sentence in galaxy cluster would cover everything (although that article is itself disappointingly poor). Edit: on second thought, galaxy groups and clusters is probably a better target. Modest Genius ^talk 11:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- It would probably be better to convert it into a disambiguation page, between galaxy groups and clusters (collection of galaxies, aka a cloud), galaxy supercluster (collection of galaxy groups and clusters, aka a cloud) and interstellar cloud (cloud in a galaxy); the subdivision of a supercluster should be part of galaxy supercluster. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:21, 28 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! 03:19, 29 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) 05:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to galaxy groups and clusters per Modest Genius. Neither I nor my fellow editors have found much evidence of notability for this term independent of galaxy group or galaxy cluster, so redirect as a rough synonym seems the best option. I would be fine with the disambig page option, too, if folks thought it necessary. --Mark viking (talk) 18:11, 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. Sandstein 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connected Revolution[edit]

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

Buzzword (WP:NEO) for new media marketing and social media "gurus". It's used in a variety of ways to talk about topics we already cover at, variously, Information Age, Hyperconnectivity, interconnectivity, cloud computing, cloud computing issues, ubiquitous computing, Internet of Things, web 2.0, Digital Revolution, and so on (and, yes, some of those have problems as well). Most of the sources cited don't even use the term "connected revolution", which makes for a concerning WP:SYNTH issue, too. Despite the capital R, a redirect will likely make sense, but there are many possible targets. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have to say the current article seems sourced and acceptable, I suppose we can delete for now and wait for a better article. I would like to see how this nomination plays though, SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect by that name into the named articles - eventually as a separate section in Information revolution (it's not just / even less about information than about a revolution of connectivity). Enough sources discuss the concept to warrant an article, however it seems there's no common term used for it with "connected revolution" being mainly used by social media advisers & marketing experts and "revolution of connectivity" or "connectivity revolution" (etc.) being more on point. I see the nominator's point and agree but I also I think Wikipedia would miss out on some important aspects of the current historic development when losing some of that info and term. Another option would be to rewrite parts of the article and to move it to a more neutral name as described in WP:NEO. --Fixuture (talk) 20:15, 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 03:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. None of the sources discuss this as an overarching concept. This is original research. mikeman67 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the sources clearly show it being used in a variety of different senses DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nilmini Gunaratne Rubin[edit]

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

Unremarkable bureaucrat who fails to meet basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Note that, despite the claim in the article, the subject does not serve "on" the House Foreign Affairs Committee (that role is restricted to members of Congress). At best, she works "for" the Committee. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as although News, Books and browser instantly found links, there's not much for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 13 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pridy[edit]

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

I am not sure whether this fails WP:NGRIDIRON or not. Criteria #1 states that the person has to appear in at least one regular or post season game. This person would pass criteria #1, since he has appeared in 2 Super Bowl games. However, this criteria applies to players and coaches. The Giants website says he is a coaching assistant, and not a coach. Does WP:NGRIDIRON apply to coaching assistants? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the Giants' web site list of front office personnel (here), Pridy was not an "assistant coach" as asserted in the article. Rather, he was a "coaching assistant" who, according to the sources I found, has duties including scheduling and assisting in video presentations. Such a role does not qualify for notability under WP:NGRIDIRON. Further, I am not finding significant, non-routine coverage of Pridy in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Accordingly, he does not appear to pass under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether NGRIDIRON was ever intended to impart a presumption of notability to assistant coaches. The phenomenon of highly paid, high-profile coordinators is a modern one, and the coordinators will usually pass GNG in their own right. Many of the second-tier assistant coaches were former players, and are presumed notable for those accomplishments. There are plenty of assistants, however, who should be subjected to the GNG analysis, especially those from the pre-modern era. Many, if not most, will not satisfy the general notability guidelines. This is especially true since NGRIDIRON applies to the CFL and Arena League, not just the NFL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that assistant coaches get an automatic pass under NGRIDIRON. But all would agree, I think, that it doesn't apply to a "coaching assistant". Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "coaching assistant" is not the same as "assistant coach"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My interpretation of WP:NRIDIRON is that assistant coaches are not covered by appearing in one or more regular season games; this was intended to cover players and head coaches, and, if necessary, this should be clarified in the guideline. That said, there is insufficient significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, and I agree with Dirtlawyer1 that that guideline should be tweaked to be more specific (which I have just done - we'll see if it holds up). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Swat[edit]

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

Article contains no credible assertion of notability. References consist of a single link to the organization's web page. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 16:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly passes GNG despite issues with references. Newly re-established education board after the military operation. The Pakistani boards (almost all of them) do not have news coverage except for their academic results. Faizan (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable per Google search. Nominating for XFD is pointless. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely if this can be improved from familiar sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both keeps here aren't all that compelling so relisting for another week –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I am quite horrified about the apparent lack of any references on majority of these education boards. Do we really need a separate article for each single one of them? These seem to be administrative organizations of trivial importance. The main article for the Pakistani education does not give me any reason to believe these boards would have any inherent notability. Ceosad (talk) 05:22, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Hall (offensive lineman)[edit]

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

I believe this article fails WP:NGRIDIRON This athlete hasn't appeared in a regular season game failing criteria #1. I don't think this passes WP:GNG either. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only significant coverage I find is this concerning an unsuccessful tryout with the NFL. I am not finding signficant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources so as to pass WP:GNG. If additional coverage is found, I am willing to reconsider my 'delete' vote. Cbl62 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Offensive linemen typically don't get any significant coverage other than bruises. I do not see the coverage necessary here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable former mid-major CFB player who signed as a free agent with an NFL team, but did not make the cut for the regular season NFL squad. Curious aside: both the Wikipedia infobox and his Texas State Bobcat player profile (presumably the source for the WP infobox) state that the subject was an Associated Press third-team All-American, and I would have expected an AP All-America, even a 3rd-teamer to attract some coverage in hometown, state and regional media. The claim of making the AP All-America team, however, is factually incorrect. The subject was not selected by AP in 2010 for their All-America team, with 1st, 2nd or 3rd-team honors: [21]. Looks like someone at the Texas State SID was playing a little fast and loose in claiming the AP AA honors, and I could not find any significant coverage of his CFB career in independent reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Searches did not turn up enough to show general notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 13 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. WP:SNOW Close Jac16888 ^Talk 20:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rose[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. She's mainly noteworthy as the girlfriend of other celebrities, with no distinctions of her own to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject doesn't deserve to meet WP:NOTABILITY. She's mainly noteworthy as the girlfriend of other celebrities, with no distinctions of her own to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. But she meets the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in sources such as NY Mag and The Independent focusses on the subject. Andrew D. (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well... she has been the focus of her own coverage in places like this CNN article about her holding a SlutWalk. I think that her notability is borderline since she is predominantly known for her dating history as opposed to a ton of articles actually about her as an individual, but this might be enough to warrant a keep overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because a person doesn't really have a good reason to be notable doesn't necessarily mean they aren't, and Amber Rose is definitely mentioned enough in the entertainment press to be notable. Blah2 (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous reliable sources cited in this article show that she meets GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She quite honestly doesn't even deserve an article but rather annoyingly the article does meet GNG so obvious Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 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.

[1] "Scituate mom finds a new role". The Boston Globe.

[2] "Erica McDermott talks career at 'Story Behind Her Success' event". The Boston Globe.

[3] "Local actress stunned by Depp's transformation in 'Black Mass'". The Patriot Ledger.

[4] "Scituate mom gets big part in major motion picture". The Herald News.

[5] "Just who are the sisters in 'The Fighter'?". Los Angeles Times. (about four short paragraphs, newsblog).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]