Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 January	14 January >

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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad Management Association[edit]

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

May not exist. Website unknown. Unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. the only gnews hit is linkedin. says it all. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it even (still) exists, it certainly does not meet notability guidelines for organizations. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The best coverage I could find was this short bit which sounds like an abbreivated press release. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie F. Shepherd[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable author signed to a book company that does not have an article of its own. Apart from the one very minor award (from a seemingly non-notable organisation), I am not seeing anything much in the way of coverage that indicates notability. The sources here are mostly not RS. DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this is my first article, your experienced opinion on whether this article fits the guidelines on notability and living persons is more qualified than mine. As a new user, please tell me if I am participating in this discussion page correctly. Could you also tell me what "RS" sources are? Dbrown7 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The normal format is for people to say whether they think the article should be kept, deleted or whatever and to give their reasons briefly. The points are bulleted (I have put a bullet on your comment above). Other relevant comments can be added too, so yours is fine. To answer your question, RS means Reliable Sources which is the policy on the sorts of sources we regard as best (most reliable) and worst. The other policy to look at is WP:AUTHOR (a small part of a larger policy) which tells you where the bar is set for an article about an author. The key point to that is that simply being a published author is not enough. It is quite normal for an author who has been published but not attracted much mainstream attention to not be notable enough for an article. Some such authors become more notable later. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as simply none of this is yet convincing enough including the listed sources (which would certainly be better). SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ✈ 01:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo Logic Air[edit]

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

Non-notable airline that doesn't even exist. No ICAO, no IATA, apparently a single plane, no flights, no routes. No-brainer. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as this is questionably notable for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, anybody that charters a Boeing 747-8 is not a backyard outfit, it appears to be waiting for operating and route licences and clearly exists. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have edited the page and added more sources and also the official website of the company that all note that the airline is awaiting its AOC from the CAA. Mumrik1985 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep I see a number of references that are not reliable. Care must be taken regarding the sources used when creating new pages.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie R. Cassileth[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, failing WP:BLP and WP:ACADEMIC. Only claim to notability is the founding of The Society for Integrative Oncology. Article suffers from one source. Delta13C (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Mistake made not referencing WP:PROF Delta13C (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 20 publications with over 100 cites give clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Mistaken nominations like this waste the time of Wikipedians. Nominator is asked to withdraw. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep her 1998 book The Alternative Medicine Handbook was reviewed in both JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine in addition to the usual places like PW[1]. So passes WP:AUTHOR 4c too.--Jahaza (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per heavily cited works on Google scholar giving a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Possibly a WP:FRINGE researcher but if so a notable one. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danton Supple[edit]

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

This biography of a music producer does not meet general notability, nor the criteria specifically for music. I can find mentions of him, but not the significant coverage needed to establish inclusion as an article. Whpq (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned with that I also think it's questionably solidly independently notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . The plethora of 'sources' are listings or fleeting mentions at best and are not at all of the kind that confer notability. Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG from my search and from the results I could get. Kansiime (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable music producer. Even the insignificant mentions of him online aren't from any reliable sources. Does not rise to the level of notability required by WP:NMUSIC and certainly not by WP:GNG. Rockypedia (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CK's Supermarkets[edit]

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

Non notable. Insufficient coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as News, browsers and Highbeam all found considerable links but I'm not yet sure if it's solidly notable. I'm willing to reconsider if better improved or if these show notability with that I would be willing to improve it if needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV clearly non notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chester McKee[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noticeably unlikely to better satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FoCuS nothing to show the subject passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Frank Gates[edit]

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

I still do not feel that Gates meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I searched on Google and Newspapers.com, and encountered mostly articles about his father, with just one decent source. Not enough for an article. PROD contested by Claudebone, with the edit summary "Not helpful." Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn, as he does indeed meet WP:PROF#C6. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it wasn't. Claudebone (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:Prof#C6 plus a scattering of pre-internet citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Let's not waste our time any more please. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Sergio Agüero[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" - Notable list of goals. Anyone having doubt should refer to this — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, not notable for it's own article:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.

Close this ASAP each list should have its prominence determined independently of one another. For instance, Rooney's international goals saw multiple reliable sources reporting on it (and his international goals list) as he approached the record. We also have a WP:FOOTBALL understanding that top scorers for their country justifies such a list. Please slow down a little and make reasonable and coherent arguments to delete these one at a time. After all, they are all different in significance. P.S. Wambach, for instance, is the highest-scoring international female footballer in history. You want to lump her goals article here? Seriously? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very WP:POINTY nomination. Whenever something that SWASTIK 25 likes is nominated, and looks like it might be deleted, they lash out by nominating other, similar, articles in AfDs of their own, which always seem to more or less directly argue against their own !vote in the first place. Maybe they should read Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram. Harrias ^talk 21:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Harrias here. To quote SWASTIK 25 (the nominator here) on the nomination he referenced: "Keep: Obviously, a notable article. What else do you mean by notable list of goals, User:Qed237? He is the all-time top goalscorer of Sweden and you are saying this article is not notable? [...] I think a country's top goalscorer should have an article like that, nothing else."
- To add to The Rambling Man's point about Wambach the article is well written and extremely well referenced. --SuperJew (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with The Rambling Man - these aren't a group which can be nominated together as they are independent of each other. For example, Tim Cahill is Australia's top scorer of all time, with and exceptionally long-lived international career, as well as a very successful (and reported on in Australia and worldwide) club career. He is also an inspiration and a role model for Aussie kids on the field and off it. --SuperJew (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're reasoning for deletion of 36 articles consists of 5 words and a post-added referral to another nomination. --SuperJew (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – this list contains a variety of levels of article: Charlton and Rooney (at least) are FLs, Wambach is the highest-scoring international female footballer in history, while Schürrle has only 20 international goals, and a short parent article. Some of these probably should be merged into the parent article, but they can not be considered in this current large grouping. There simply isn't enough similarity in the cases. Harrias ^talk 21:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suggest closing this as well as the others, warning the nominator about WP:POINT. People are wasting their time here over a dispute and we should not be part of it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per The Rambling Man.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ext2#Under other operating systems. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ext2IFS[edit]

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

Software that doesn't seem to have any significant coverage by reliable sources in the article or my searches, failing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely better notable for the software notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download sites and blog entries, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ext2#Under other operating systems. There are trivial mentions scattered throughout sources, such as this article in PC Magazine, but that's not really enough to satisfy the GNG. For fear that this would be deleted without a merge, I added a very brief section to ext2 about the larger concept (accessing Linux files from inside Microsoft Windows). Since ext2ifs is now mentioned in that article, and it has a third party reliable source, I think redirection is quite valid. There are a couple more of these articles about Windows-based ext2 utilities that could probably be redirected/merged there, but we can worry about that later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarthak Sinha[edit]

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

There is no notability according to WP:PROF. (there are 3 publications--Canadian Young Scientist Journal, Journal of Undergraduate Research and a poster at a meeting-not surprisingly, none of them have been cited.) The award is apparently a student award, not a national level award for actual scientific accomplishments. The question is the applicability of GNG and BLP1E. Several similar afds have been decided in various ways. My argument is that coverage of someone because their youth, or winning a student contest, is not notability, and certainly not if most of the coverage is affiliated with the organisations sponsoring the program. There is no substantial 3rd party reference, ref.12, Globe & Mail top 20 under 20 is a mere listing with a photo. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's response: This article has been considerably revised to include more citations from media coverage which this individual has received. The notability of this individual isn't entirely in his scientific contributions. It's in his ability to stay influential in expressing his views through platforms and collaborations with the TED group, charity organizations and award programs. The content he has produced has reached millions of people, gained significant ongoing press coverage, he has held key positions within the MS Society, Canadian young scientist journal, ect. and is someone I strongly suspect will continue to be influential as a scientist and as an activist in the upcoming future.

Other similar profiles of notable youth in sciences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Burhanpurkar

Again, this individual is not recognized for her scientific merit in terms of quality and quantity of publications, but rather for being active, engaging and influential in her community.

Other similar profiles of notable youth selected as Top 20 Under 20 in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Feldman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose.cook (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Jose.cook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. This is yet another SPA-created, media-complicit, fan/autobio article of an "undergraduate scientist". We are still having problems adjudicating the Jacob Barnett article and hardly need another PUFF piece. Since this person might go on to do notable things, I think the official assessment is WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Follows the general notability guidelines which states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate.huff (talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DGG and Agricola44 Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and is a Undergraduate student and at best WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we might well want to discuss Maya Burhanpurkar, though I see some considerably more significant awards. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a smart guy. I'm sure he'll do well when he starts his career. But this is way, way, way WP:TOOSOON. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor has deleted the delete comments and added a keep comment. Another SP. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per Opabinia Regalis; this is most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, although it might never end up being notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - I deserve a trout for not bothering with BEFORE!, The only time I've not followed it and it has to backfire on me!, Well thanks Edison . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luton to Dunstable Busway[edit]

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

Non notable bus route, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It satisfies notability through the five news stories from regional sources as well as the BBC which you see if you click on the "news" link above. The nominator should have checked for sources before nominating it.It is not just another random bus route. The sources note that it is a "guided busway,"somehow self-steering, akin to light rail for much of its length, and that this infrastructure costs 91 million pounds. It achieves a vast improvement in travel time between its terminals, and this has had societal effects such as increases in real estate prices. Edison (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Close as listed twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarthak Sinha (2nd nomination)) so I have now commented at the 2nd nom, I'll close this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarthak Sinha[edit]

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

There is no notability according to WP:PROF. (there are 3 publications--Canadian Young Scientist Journal, Journal of Undergraduate Research and a poster presentation at a meeting--not surprisingly, none of them have been cited.) The question is the applicability of GNG and BLP1E. Several similar afds have been decided in various ways. My argument is that coverage of someone because their youth, or winning a student contest, is not notability, and certainly not if most of the coverage is affiliated with the organisations sponsoring the program. There is no substantial 3rd party reference, ref.12, Globe & Mail top 20 under 20 is a mere listing with a photo. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Al-Bashtawi[edit]

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

Non-notable player or am i missing something? (Yeah, vandalism on there aswell...) Kante4 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; also a possible hoax Giant Snowman 12:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails 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) 11:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Adlam[edit]

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

Previously deleted as not meeting notability criteria, nothing has changed in the few months from the previous deletion discussion Whpq (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the references here do not support WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG and agree with nom nothing has changed since Previous deletion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Lemonade.[edit]

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

Appears to be a clear cut case of WP:NOTRECIPE. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing to show this is a notable trend, or even to verify the information given. ubiquity (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG in current form. A quick google makes it look like there is no fixed set of ingredients beyond being some form of alcoholic fizzy lemon drink. KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting also the argument that the article is a COPYVIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs considered the best[edit]

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

Per WP:TOP100: recreations of "Top 100" or similar lists where the lists were curated based on creative criteria are unacceptable use of non-free content, and I don't believe that any of these publications are free to license in this manner. This article is nothing but a compilation of those lists; it's a giant WP:COPYVIO essentially. Other than that, other editors have identified WP:WORLDWIDE issues as the publications reproduced tend to be exclusively U.S.- and U.K.-based, and so "considered the best" is wildly inaccurate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I started to !vote keep, because I thought I remembered this list being a list of single songs various publications considered the best. So it was puzzling to see a claim of copyvio as though citing what the publication's "best" song was constitutes "A complete or partial recreation [of the whole list]". Of course as soon as I looked at it again, I saw that it is, in fact, just a compilation of top lists. Beyond copyvio concerns, it's also not even an appropriately defined list. It's not a "list of songs considered the best", it's a "list of lists of songs considered the top 10 best by a handful of publications". If someone wanted to go blow it up to turn it into something closer to List of video games considered the best that would work. I'm still considering, but this comment is likely to turn into a delete !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list of video games article is subject to much the same problem. It's the very definition of original research and synthesis of sources. We've taken a few dozen qualitatively-ranked lists by various publications, set our own criteria and filtered the results into a quantitative ranking of "best" games. If this was someone's homework in a stats class they might get a decent mark on it, but it's not the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should be doing. A big red flag is a list requiring a detailed "methodology" section. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the issues cited by the nom, this is way too broad a topic, as there are many, many genres (most of which aren't covered). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork, and also per Ivanvector's comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the methodology used to determine "the best" is totally flawed... we have an arbitary and incomplete selection of polls used as sources, nearly all are US or UK-based, the poll sample sizes are different and no attempt has been made to weight the samples, the time frames for each poll vary throughout, and there are far more standard pop/rock polls than any other genre of music, which obviously is going to lead to bias towards certain songs. We have absolutely no means of addressing any of these major flaws in methodology, so all of this leads to a "result" which is meaningless. Richard3120 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ✈ 01:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Art and History Museum of Pilion[edit]

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

Contested PROD, article tagged as possibly not notable since August 2008. This article has no assertion of notability and no reliable sources, just three external links, which have unclear connection to subject, and one is dead. My searches turned up almost no results at all about this museum. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: moved to Museum of Folk Art and History of Pelion, a more accurate translation: It is a museum devoted to the folk art and history of the Pelion region. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Makrinitsa I've looked to establish notability for this on several occasions but have drawn a complete blank. The Makrinitsa article is very short, and wouldn't hurt from a new section (Culture? Museums?) with this one sentence in. Then readers can find the same info on it. Boleyn (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that, but is there a reliable source that this place still exists (or existed)? FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly enough that it existed in a Google search and listed external links. I think it adds up to enough for a line in an article. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some content. The subject is discussed in depth by various independent sources, both English and Greek. I do not know why these did not show up in the nominator's web search. Where a name is translated from a foreign language, it is best to not limit the search to a precise match. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it happens, the page was deleted by GB fan, CSD U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chutiabanaya[edit]

~~There seems to be no content on this page - just random lists of names and numbers, likely to be indexed by search engines. KNHaw ^(talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Please disregard. My error, as this is a user talk page. KNHaw ^(talk) 18:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 under criterion G5. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmed Siddiqui[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Subject lacks notability and isn't covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find any reliable sources that show the subject's notability. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocker[edit]

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

Non-notable software, fails GNG ukexpat (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not perfect, but just about OK in my view.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What policy-based reasons do you have for your vote?Dialectric (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the current sources are simply not enough and my searches found nothing better than one News link from 2010. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. The current sources are developers' sites, a blog and an incidental mention, neither of which satisfy the notability requirements. A search turned up download sites and forum posts, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant (possibly not): Visiting the product download page causes this Firefox warning, saying that there is reported unwanted software. The message's "Why was this page blocked?" button links to this Firefox info page talking about the built-in "Phishing and Malware Protection".God, maker of the world (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LGBT culture in Shanghai. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucca Cafe and Lounge[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. run of the mill gay bar LibStar (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Keep in mind, this is in China, where "gay" isn't "run of the mill"). Sources:
http://www.smartshanghai.com/venue/12015/lucca
http://www.timeoutshanghai.com/venue/Bars__Clubs-Bars__Clubs/25836/Lucca.html
http://www.timeoutshanghai.com/features/Blog-Clubbing__Nightlife/25827/390-reopens-as-Lucca-.html
http://www.cityweekend.com.cn/shanghai/directory/lucca-café-lounge

The article can also be expanded to include information about the bar's former incarnation, 390:

http://www.smartshanghai.com/venue/7657/390_panyu_lu
http://www.smartshanghai.com/wire/nightlife/closed-390-shanghai-studio
http://www.cityweekend.com.cn/shanghai/directory/390-bar-closed
http://www.fodors.com/world/asia/china/shanghai/things-to-do/nightlife/reviews/390-bar-588540
https://books.google.com/books?id=Uz-wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT432&lpg=PT432&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=dcMECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also, keep in mind, the above are all English-language references. Surely there are more in Chinese. There are actually very few LGBT establishments in China, even in Shanghai, which has a population of 20+ million. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

these are primarily travel guide listings. And a lot of them would have got their information straight from the Cafe itself. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While understanding Another Believer's point, there simply isn't enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show notability. Granted "there may be" in Chinese sources, but that's not a valid argument. My searches did not turn up anything to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – searches for Chinese sources do not turn up anything reliable. sst ✈ 16:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Request: I've expanded the article a bit using a couple of the sources mentioned above. I find it hard to believe there are not Chinese sources covering the venue, but I can't argue otherwise so I will assume good faith. IF this article is deemed inappropriate for inclusion at English Wikipedia, may I suggest redirecting and/or merging the content to LGBT culture in Shanghai? Again, I would prefer a standalone article, but if consensus dictates otherwise, I think redirecting is better than deleting. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not mind redirecting. I cannot find any Chinese name for this company. Most Chinese language results are blogs, aggregator websites and self-published sources. I searched using several Chinese search engines and selecting Chinese results with Google. sst ✈ 04:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, perhaps not yet solidly better notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting wp:gng, travel guides are not reliable sources 166.164.37.67 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Desolation[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as there's nothing currently here to suggest satisfying bands notability guidelines, not even minimally, and my searches found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I'm not sure about this one yet. Here's what I've got: [2] from Blabbermouth (just noticed this is already linked above), [3] from Exclaim!, and [4] from Journal Review Online, which I think is a local Indiana newspaper. There's also [5] from theprp.com, which I think may be reliable (Billboard quoted it, and the Los Angeles Times covered it). However, I'll wait to see what others say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Source examples include: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The band is also covered here in New Wave of American Heavy Metal, but the coverage is too short to be used to demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica. Sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources has been demonstrated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addy Miller[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. The roles listed here are all minor/extras. No coverage in reliable mainstream media. only (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 38 screen credits at age 15. Leading or prominent roles in at least 7 productions including just finished/in production.See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2900452/filmotype/actress?ref_=m_nmfn_1 Atlantic306 (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these do you classify as the prominent roles? only (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is incomplete. Leading roles: in Night of the Living Dead:Genesis,The Devil's Tree,Waiting for Butterflies,Red Rose. 2nd billing in One Last Sunset Redux,3rd billing in Potent Media's Sugar Skull Girls,5th billing in a big cast for Paranormal.nb some films have only just completed.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As of right now, the films don't seem to be too notable. None of them seem to have Wikipedia articles, at least. Not sure if any are notable. only (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seems to be best known for small but memorable role in the first episode of series The Walking Dead, see Huffington Post article here http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/the-first-zombie-on-walking-dead-addy-miller_5613478de4b022a4ce5f4864 Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggest a better solid notable article including for the guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. She is currently a non-notable actress, which may change in the future. Delta13C (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Addy Miller meets the WP:NACTOR criteria of: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Miller has a significant cult following as the first zombie from The Waking Dead and for her horror movie roles- she does countrywide tours of horror conventions. (see Huffington post article in earlier comment).Also, regarding criteria 3: Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, I believe Miller qualifiers as a prolific contributor to the field of horror film with 38 screen credits at age 15.Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 38 screen credits on IMDb, sure, but how many of those are notable/significant films? Fourteen of those 38 are listed as "short" and seem to be local films for local film festivals, not notable movies. Three of the roles are uncredited. Is there evidence of her "cult" following? Just appearing at conventions doesn't make her have a cult following necessarily. only (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NACTOR I took to mean that although Miller does not qualify for notable roles being in notable films at present she can still qualify under criteria 2 for having a cult following or even if that fails under criteria3 for being prolific which I understood doesn't have to be in notable productions necessarily.I still think her output is prolific even discounting short films.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As well as U.S.A., Miller seems to have a cult following in Germany where she also attends horror conventions and has lots of google hits for German horror and movie sites.Regarding cult status in U.S. this was uploaded yesterday here also state coverage here and convention coverage here and horror sites here.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've corrected the links above.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still don't believe that these links help prove notability for her. only (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added this here to external links, example of her following in Germany.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what it adds other than showing her appearing once at a convention in Germany. only (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This article from mainstream German newspaper mentions cult status here I'm trying to get a better translation of this and an article from Bild but am having trouble with the translater appsAtlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This mentions her cult status in Germany here It takes a while to load,apologies for the large page size.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources that Atlantic306 mentioned are either passing mentions or in one case (thenewenglandmegafest) source are not reliable. Fails WP:GNG but might also be a WP:TOOSOON here. 166.164.37.67 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The references I gave such as the Huffington Post are articles completely about her,much more than passing mentionsAtlantic306 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ✈ 16:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer Rafaqat Hussain Awan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Cubbie15fan (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Council (his membership is confirmed here) he would appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN. The "engineer" part should obviously be removed from the article title as it's just an honorific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as per Necrothesp, and rename as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malghani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is the third creation of this article, previously deleted via CSD and PROD. Sitush (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not sure if it makes sense to have articles for each and every Baloch tribe but this is legitimate. Ansari Ali Sher Ali classified them as Umrani Baloch in 1901, Bombay Education Society noted them in 1907, they show up in the 1911 Indian census as Baloch, and in 2009 Vidya Tyagi listed them as a major Baloch tribe. That said, is there enough to warrant a mention outside of the Baloch tribes page? Curro2 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS - the Raj stuff is not reliable - and for Tyagi see WP:MIRROR. His is one of the most blatant plagiarising exercises published by Gyan. A shared surname does not make for a tribe, at least here on WP, so no there is no reasonable redirect. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1901 and 1907 and a census in 1911... Curro2 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For background on why the Raj census operations are not reliable, you could try Census of India prior to independence. For example, castes/tribes came and went sometimes in a decade because people "made things up" as they jostled for socio-political advantage ... and the enumerators just took them at their word. We need modern sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ,3 mentions in "Balochistan Through the Ages: Tribes" (1979) [11] 1 corresponding to the 1907 gazetteer. Sigmabaroda (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STOP stalking me. You're like one of the notorious IAC sockfarm from last year. As for your !vote, I think the book you refer to is actually a compilation of reprints from Raj publications. Useless. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA and stop your WP:BULLYING. That Raj publications are being used after 60 years shows how durable / solid they were, so please ride your little Raj hobby horse somewhere else and be WP:CIVIL in your interactions with other editors.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the Raj publications are not being widely used by modern academics, and for a good reason. See, for example, WP:HISTRS and User:Sitush/CasteSources. There is no bullying or personal attacking being done by me. - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the specific publications in this instance are over 100 years' old, not 60. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously your little essay is quite meaningless and self-contradictory. Having acknowledged that the AnSi's 'People of India' ('90s) is heavily Raj based, you make statements like But the Raj publications are not being widely used by modern academics? FYI, Risley, Rose, Monier-Williams rule the roost in the office of the Registrar General of India.Sigmabaroda (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read this WP article section and you will see why that department of modern academics (AnSI) is the exception to the rule. We do not pay much attention to the Government of India's opinion regarding castes for the same reason - it is all one big political game and not remotely independent. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1901 Balochistan census (Hughes Buller) is still used by "modern academics". Baluch and the Brahui, it has Malghani as a commonly listed tribe, and it is cited as "expert" in Pakistan circles [12].Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin; Sigmabaroda has been indeffed for disruptive editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy if needed as simply none of this is solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle of Dvin. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Divin[edit]

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

Empty article except for infobox, with no proper referencing; there is no place called Divin in the region in question except for Dvin, which in 1045 was held by Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl; he did indeed defeat the Byzantines in that year, but this has nothing to do with the Seljuks. It is widely recognized that the first encounter between Byz. and the Seljuks was at the Battle of Kapetron in 1048. Constantine ✍ 21:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The article was only created 4 days ago, apparently as a translation from the Turkish WP. The conflict mentioned by Constantine may well be the basis of the article, which should perhaps be Dvin, not Divin. However the correct version of the name may depend on how it should be transliterated. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish article was created by the same user, and both the content and the sourcing there are laughable; the references are to books without page numbers, and the article is simply the description of the infobox content in text form. It is also a clear sign of something fishy going on when the "translated" article refers to different sources than the original, even though the author is the same in both cases, and that source (A Short History of the Middle Ages, Volume II) makes no mention at all to this supposed battle as far as I can see. IMO this is clear (and deliberate) WP:HOAX territory. Constantine ✍ 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right in this case about the veracity of this article, but, in general, it's not only reasonable, but useful, for somebody who translates an article to seek sources in the destination language to replace the ones in the source language. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would agree if there was any meaningful content in the article. In this case, it reeks of disingenuousness. Constantine ✍ 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I can't find anything to substantiate this and because I found this that suggests that a "battle of Dvin" is an invention from a community-written story. See the May 20, 2013, 02:53 PM entry, for example. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at the contents of that page and it appears to have nothing to do with what's written in the Turkish article, which seems to be based on legitimate academic sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless a user agrees to expand. Page currently contains no valuable information. Meatsgains (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently not enough context for an article. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to The Historical Dictionary of Armenia, "Shaddadid rule over Dvin did not go uncontested by competing Muslim tribes, and after their entry into Ani in 1045, the Byzantines also advanced upon Dvin but also failed to capture it." The Turkish page has sources and it's possible the best sources may be in Turkish. This should be tagged as needing the help of a translator, and also moved to Battle of Dvin. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look in the articles linked above, especially Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl (of which i am the principal author). Whatever sources there are have been used there, and there is nothing whatsoever even remotely similar to what the article proposes... The sources of the Turkish page are laughable, being without page references, and the "article" itself is even more so, merely rehashing the contents of the infobox. Constantine ✍ 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I reverted your removal of the sources - which I stole from your article above. Doesn't this describe the battle that this article is supposed to be about? Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that is what my edit summary comment was about: don't edit something if you are not certain about it. The Byzantines clashed with Shavur in 1045 (for which there are no details enough for a stand-alone article), and with the Seljuks for the first time in 1048, and not in Dvin. Constantine ✍ 20:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must be supremely confused. p. 122 of Ter-Ghewondyan says "... Iasites launched a great expedition against Dwin in which the magistros Constantine the Alan, the Armenian army under the command of Vahram Pahlawuni, and Liparit Orbelean all participated. Faced with this united force, Abu'l-Aswar had recourse to the stratagem of opening the irrigation canals and flooded the fertile vineyards stretching around the walls of Dwin. The attackers mired in the mud and falling under a hail of arrows from the walls were totally routed and both Vahram Pahlawuni and his son Gregory remained among the victims." This seems consistent with the contents of the Turkish article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Actually I notice that Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl even has a painting of this event. If you're sure there are no more sources we should merge/redirect, but are you sure the source in the Turkish article is bunk? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "nothing whatsoever even remotely similar" comment I made above was excessive, but the point is the same: this article is bogus. Now, the source of the Turkish article is not bunk; I don't have access to it, but I can believe it is a relatively reliable academic source. The way it is used on the other hand arises suspicion, especially since it is conveniently without page numbers and has been dropped during the "translation" process to be replaced by an English source where this battle is not mentioned, all of which are indications of something fishy going on. In addition, it claims that the battle was between the Seljuks under Qutalmish, which is incorrect, and provides exact army numbers, which AFAIK are entirely fictitious. Hence the basic premise of the article ("18,000 Seljuks under Qutalmish defeat 25,000 Byzantines-Armenians-Georgians under Constantine IX Monomachos at D[i]vin") is wrong. There was a Byzantine battle near Dvin in 1045, which you've quoted above; it was not against Qutalmish or another Seljuk general, but against the Shaddadid Shavur; it did not feature Constantine IX Monomachos, but Constantine the Alan; there are no exact numbers for the troops involved; and it was far less of a battle and more of a failed attempt at siege. I stand by my belief that the aim of this article is to deliberately mislead/falsify the historical event (the source change and the invented numbers clinch the argument for me), and hence the proper response is to delete it per the spirit of WP:DENY. Whether an article or a redirect for the correct battle is to be created is another cup of tea. Constantine ✍ 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we should keep per WP:NEXIST but kill the infobox with the dubious claims and stubbify it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, no. The "Battle of Divin" doesn't exist. The "Battle of Dvin" does, if we agree we should name it thus. If you want a stub for the latter fine, but why on earth should we keep the former? I understand you want to "fix" the problem, but in my view, the best thing is to purge the one and start afresh with the other. Constantine ✍ 22:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I carried out the above program and moved the page. "Divin" is the Turkish word for Dvin, and apparently arose from a mistake in translation. This might make sense as a redirect, or the redirect can be deleted if you like. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Preservationists Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Most references cited do not mention this organization at all. The few that do are database listings or mentions in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable organization. JDDJS (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references do mention the organization. They are articles in newspapers that discuss the encampment along with the preservation of the state marina. The Seabrook Wilson house along with the many other houses(Allen House Shrewsbury, Holmes-Hendrickson House) that have wiki pages were preserved by this organization. Evso727 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)^[1][reply]

References

^ [PDF]7 - Red Bank Register Archive 209.212.22.88/Data/RBR/1980-1989/1988/1988.03.07.pdf MIDDLETOWN — The Preservationists Inc. sponsors ... Preservationist member Peg Cocoran, Port Mon- mouth. ... Muscenti, show chairman, at 291-1420 before.

Comment Some of the references mention the organization, but only in passing. They are articles about things with which the Preservationists have been involved, and mention the organization, but they are not in-depth coverage of the organization. A non-profit organization without an identified website (none listed here, none listed anywhere else that I could find) would have a great deal of trouble rising to the level of activity to be considered notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have grave doubts as to its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just not seeing enough to satisfy WP:ORG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, questionably notable and it's currently even nearly speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Barkley[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST at best upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to starShipSofa. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FarFetchedFables[edit]

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

Contested prod, appears to be a non-notable podcast which does not satisfy GNG. I can't seem to find and sources to vouch for it. It may be a bit too soon. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JSzal: Far Fetched Fables is the sister site of the Hugo award winning podcast StarShipSofa, the first podcast in history to ever win the award. It has played hundreds of stories by major authors such as Seanan McQuire, Joe Landsale, Scott Lynch, Gene Wolfe and others. It can be found on it's website or on iTunes, here.

I hope that clears up a few things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremySzal (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 04:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 04:31, 30 December 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) 06:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is unlikely to better satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (media). SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to starShipSofa - not really enough arterial or sources to justify a standalone. Artw (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DanRock Productions[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICIAN and WP:CREATIVE. There are no reliable mainstream sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned - Article not currently suggesting solid notability and better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not appear notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everton in the Community[edit]

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

No justification for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everton in the Community, like similar activities of other clubs, concerns many different sports and activities besides football, like the representation of ten athlets in international games and two athlets in 2012 paralympic games and many other achievements and awards. Tables for the athlets and other information not related to the main article of football. Contrary to the article Everton L.F.C. which is separately from the Everton F.C., Everton in the Community is a stub. There are many things to enrich the article. Considering the above, I think the issue for which talks article should be developed separately. --IM-yb (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except what I wrote above, please explain which parts of Wikipedia policy falls this article. --IM-yb (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources. Seems alright, and like a separate entity from the football club. Even though its website is a subpage of the football club's site - http://www.evertonfc.com/community for the record. Certainly don't delete without merging its content into the football club at least, if it has to be done. Elzbenz (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a content fork and the topic isn't notable in and of itself. Szzuk (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text does not have the correct device. I corrected it. About notable, some of the reports about awards and player appearances in international competitions and paralympics, activities who leading to built free school with right by the government, important work for community generally (according to the sources, BBC and others) is think enough for me. It surprised me that nobody talks about merger. All says only about "keep" or "delete". --IM-yb (talk) 00:35, 31 December 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) 03:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ✈ 01:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Thiruvalla[edit]

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

Notability, Style of Writing; Has directed only 1 movie till date. Ninney (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm doing a search for the awards, but I can't see where they actually won some of the awards listed in the article and I'm getting the impression that the films were nominated in the respective listed categories but didn't actually win in those categories. The news stories I am finding are a bit vague as to who won what. ([13], [14]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now perhaps at best and draft and userfy until a better article is available if that ever happens. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to see what coverage his other film has received. Producing credits are always iffy since there are different levels of producing. If he was an executive producer for a notable film then I'd argue that this could give notability, but this is difficult to establish for Indian films since they're not often in places that would have this information and can be easily verified. Now what he does have going for him is that the award that I can verify for his second film (Nargis Dutt Award for Best Feature Film on National Integration) appears to be a fairly major one, enough to where it'd gain coverage and would give at least partial notability. I'm leaning towards a weak keep so far, but it'd be a shaky one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it should be usable. A look at the film awards article (National Film Awards (India)) says that it's "the most prominent film award ceremonies in India". One of the supporting actresses also won an award. She shared it with another person, but it looks like it'd be about the equivalent of sharing an Oscar? It's frustrating that I can't find any reviews of the film, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially leaning towards a delete, but I managed to find enough coverage to justify an article for Thanichalla Njan. It's surprising that there are no film reviews out there, but it did win two awards from a very major film awards outlet. There was also some coverage during filming, which makes the lack of reviews that much more puzzling, but they might exist in a different language. He has two films that would pass NFILM and while the overall sourcing is weak, it's enough for him to pass GNG now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The News Tribe[edit]

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

no editorial board. org is not reliable enough Saqib (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your personal opinion about the topic does not create a deletion argument. Did you have anything to discuss that needs admin tools? Unscintillating (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in a way he may be saying the news site is WP:USERGENERATED -- it doesn't really have an ed board, it's just these guys... which is as you say ≠ lack of notability, as the discussion isn't around whether it's a reliable source for referencing purposes or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not close inadequate noms when appropriate? Such closures are WP:NPASR, so if there is really a deletion argument to be found with some more work, such closures allow the nominator a chance to correct the deficiency. This way we improve the quality of AfD overall. Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the current article is not suggesting even minimally better with only their own websites listed. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not among the highest traffic news sites in Pakistan. (urdupoint.com seems to be the highest, followed by express.pk and dailypakistan.com.pk, judging from alexa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 January 2016‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Box Job Scheduler[edit]

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

I don't know whether this is legitimate, but other than one reference, unrelated to the company, there were four other links in the article, all going to a porn site. I removed them. My guess is that this is a fake, created just for an excuse to include porn links S Philbrick (Talk) 16:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Only ref does not mention this software. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I discounted arguments presented by sockpuppets. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Quint[edit]

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

NN notable writer. References consist of examples of her tweets, inclusion in lists, or brief mentions of her. No in-depth secondary coverage of the subject. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep - This writer Maura Quint's notability is evidenced by the reach of her work, treatment of her by credible news sources as expert in the subject matter of alleged Twitter plagiarism and her prominence in American online humor. ```` Johnthethirdandfourth— Johnthethirdandfourth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment This is a tricky one. I agree that there's no in-depth secondary coverage of the subject, but she and/or her Twitter feed get passing mentions in many WP:RS, about the Josh Ostrovsky plagiarism allegations. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I spent time removing the heavy promotional tone from this article, and am now being rewarded with a shower of sockpuppets. Thanks for helping me make up my mind. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been secondary coverage of the subject. For example she has been the subject of interviews on podcasts. ```` Paulsimonmightbegiants— ‎Paulsimonmightbegiants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interviews are not secondary coverage, they are primary in nature. reddogsix (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am concerned that the improper inclusion of this entry as an article for deletion may perhaps reflect unintended anti-female bias. This article regards a significant subject, it conforms to Wikipedia standards and it should stay.Sarah Wilson 4 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)— Sarah Wilson 4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Commment - Rather than make unfounded accusations, rather ugly ones at that, read WP:AGF and instead of making such horrible comments, please cite how this individual meets the criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sarah Wilson 4 has been blocked as a sock of Paulsimonmightbegiants --David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Draftify I think the subject is WP:TOOSOON. I did a search on several databases, didn't find her. She's mentioned very often in the blogosphere and is on several big podcasts. But she doesn't pass the threshold for WP:GNG yet. No prejudice for recreate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Johnthethirdandfourth and Sarah Wilson 4 are Confirmed puppets of ‎Paulsimonmightbegiants. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulsimonmightbegiants.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and at best is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, nothing found in reliable sources which discuss the subject, only mentions in cited news sources (heres another one - [15]), is about her criticising Josh Ostrovsky, so a somthing could be added there?Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion below has demonstrated that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about Skye Celine Baker, but opinion is split as to how WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE should apply in this case, and on whether Miss Earth Guam should be considered a "country" / "national level" competition. Der yck C. 18:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Celine Baker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT (just a preliminary round and the main event of the same cycle) The Banner talk 13:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is notable in accordance to WP:GNG. Baker won the pageant in the Territory of Guam with television news in Guam and supported by third party acceptable sources. The Pacific News Center, a news agency reported after she entered the semifinal cut in the Miss Earth 2015: "Miss Earth Guam Makes History, Placing in the Top 16". In fact, it's the first semifinal placement in the Big Four international beauty pageants after 28 years (the last semifinal placement: Miss World 1987). She also made news from different news agencies in Guam: PNC TV News Miss Earth Guam 2015, TV14 Miss Earth crowned at Sheraton, Pacific News Center Miss Earth Guam Makes History…, Guam Daily Post Wong, Baker crowned as Miss Earth Guam 2014, 2015, Kuam News Miss Earth Guam Skye Baker places in top 16, Kuam News Miss Earth crowned at Sheraton--Richie Campbell (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guam is not a country or even a state, it's an island with 171,000 people. This is just a routine event that receives WP:ROUTINE coverage "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. ". Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per richie Foreach n everyday (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Miss Earth Guam § Annual competitions. Most coverage is about her attaining the crown for 2015 Miss Earth Guam, so the article may not qualify at this time per WP:BLP1E. However, the subject is barely mentioned at the merge target, and a merge would enhance and improve the Miss Earth Guam article as per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth _Guam#Titleholders. Plausible redirect, cheap, merge possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: The subject here is a person and not Guam. Skye won in the national pageant legitimately and has credible sources. Artchino (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person that fails WP:NMODEL. Further Guam is not a country. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment- The article should be kept because she won a well-known pageant in the Territory of Guam with third party reliable sources and her placement in the international level is Guam's first after 28 years in the Big Four pageants. Her feat has been featured and "worthy of notice" in the mainstream media in Guam. The person has multiple independent sources presented in my initial comment above to demonstrate notability.--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would indeed be great news for her hometown, but any info from elsewhere? The Banner talk 19:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keshor Daga[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria; little to no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article has been redirected to the subject's company a couple times and reverted by the article creator, a SPA that has mainly edited on the subject and his company. Citobun (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I changed this to a redirect once, but the creator simply changed it back. Deb (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable WP:AUTOBIO. Many article claims are about the company not him. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make a fully protected redirect to the company - only "notability" is inherited, or inherent, from his company position but notability is not inherited. - Arjayay (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, Don't Delete* There is a YourStory interview article covered by Yahoo. Please go through it and edit the page as you please. This page is also linked with 3 other pages and is not an orphan. --Rajroy816 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you declared your conflict of interest? Deb (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auraa Cinemas[edit]

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

Film distribution company: only one source given actually mentions the company by name, and I can't find any other sources which aren't reheated press releases that talk the company up and quote the founder. McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solidly notable, News, browsers and WP:INDAFD all found links but not convincingly enough. Notifying tagger Kavdiamanju. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It looked notable at the first look due to popular Bollywood movies under its belt, so I have tagged it for more references and it appears it don't have any major coverage, it clearly deserves deletion.Kavdiamanju (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 18:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Maggio[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Pure promotion. ubiquity (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. ubiquity (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Freakley[edit]

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

Simon Freakley not notable as per the notability guideline of this website. He is not a notable businessman and just winning Birmingham University's Alumnus of the Year for 2007 doesn't make him notable. UI1990 (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although this is soured, it's still questionably solidly notable for the guidelines. Notifying tagger TheLongTone. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his achievements are rather run of the mill for a businessman. Agree with nom that he has no high level recognition. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amadons: Outside[edit]

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

Debut novel of teenager, with no source and claim of significance. Google search also brings no significant coverage. Variation 25.2 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Variation 25.2 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus self-published. —teb728 t c 09:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV upcoming at best the first novel was released on Dec 15th 2015 a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8x8[edit]

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

Non-notable article about a company that only has passing mentions in the reference given which is against WP:CORP. Most of the references are also press releases that are not WP:RS. A Google search doesn't show up anything notable to be on Wikipedia. Aha... (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps at best as none of this currently suggest a better notable article. Notifying 1st AfDers Primefac, ToonLucas22, C.Fred and Dsprc. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments given at the previous discussion. --TL22 (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. IDK what is meant by "notable article" but the subject of the article is notable -- if one takes issue with quality of current article: do the required research and footwork to improve it. The company is publicly traded on NASDAQ (notable itself??); of which at least their financials are easy enough to find wide coverage of[16][17] and some Yahoo Finance stuff related to symbol and stock (FOX Business appears to have discussed at least the financials on T.V.[18] -- I don't have the pox-infested Adobe Flash plugin so can't examine video); other stuff is slightly more difficult to come by as they're buried under mountains of corporate propaganda (aka press releases). The latter point is also troubled by the company having a generic name. However there is a fair bit of content related to corp's -- slightly easy to search for -- old name Packet8 [19], product reviews [20], this thing in New York Times [21] and covered numerous times in the early 2000s on Leo Laporte's nationally syndicated radio show The Tech Guy [22] (Internet Archive copies). Please also be aware that Google only indexes (and ranks even more poorly) only about 15% of a Web that is infinite -- there is stuff in there, you just can't be lazy when looking for things (try some Boolean, site: operators or a meta-search engine). -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no such thing as a "non-notable article". Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who can't be bothered with Flash. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I usually look first at investing.businessweek.com, as their business model requires that their customers have confidence in the information that they provide, they have an army of reporters, and my experience has been that their inclusion criteria is a good fit with Wikipedia's, [23]. Given that the stock is traded on NASDAQ, there is no surprise to find a Company description there. I seem to recall a discussion on WP:CORP to the effect that publicly traded corporations by their very nature have a high profile of public attention to the topic. So starting AfDs on such topics is almost certain to be an exercise in futility. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. The articles are found to not be notable, and to not meet the requirements of WP:PRODUCTS - specifically: "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SCH-B100[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT GoingBatty (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar stubs for the same series of mobile phones:[reply]

GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Then why don't we just delete all articles about mobile phones and cameras etc.? The fact you don't know these mobile phones and they don't have a commercial name doesn't make them irrelevant for Wikipedia. A lot of these mobile phones reached very high sales numbers, and there is a lot of information to find about them, I just didn't add that information (yet). That's why these articles are called STUBS. Kind regards, Coldbolt (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ keep - Not every phone made is going to be a success and not every phone made will have amazing sources, As these pre 2004 sourcing isn't going to be great anyway but searching "Samsung SGH 200" I've found a few sources [24], They're not great but you're probably not gonna get better than them. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - trivial variants. WP:PRODUCTS explicitly says "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product". --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Coldbolt and Davey2010: Would it be worthwhile to start with an article about Samsung mobile phones instead? (It currently is just a redirect to Samsung Electronics#Mobile phones.) GoingBatty (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound a good idea but only problem is I wouldn't even know where to start, I guess not every phone ever made needs an article but being someone who loves the old stuff I can't say Delete , –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is difficult to start an article about Samsung mobile phones in general. You must realize that the Samsung SGH-Q105 isn't less important than for example the LG KM900, and that the Samsung SGH-Q105 is totally different from for example the Samsung SGH-Z110. As I said before, there's enough info to find on every single article, including all specifications. I should be given the time to expand them eventually. I was planning on doing it anyway sometime, that's why I created these stubs, but I wasn't expecting people making a problem of it. If you google these phones yourself you will find enough information, and Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit so I don't see the point to delete these articles and give people like me who are interested in these (old) technologies the chance to expand them in the future. Kind regards, Coldbolt (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldbolt: Support having these articles moved to your userspace or to draftspace so that you could continue working on them. GoingBatty (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the lot essentially just product listings in stubs. Maybe a list might be viable but that also smacks of being INDISCRIMINATE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Cadbury[edit]

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

Feels very much like a vanity page with little substance, predominantly sculpted by SPAs before some copyvio removing revisions. Article is bulked out with many non-encyclopaedic achievements. Reads like a resume. Struggling to see notability - bought and sold some pricey pubs, has a franchise of kidzania. Doesn't have substantial and significant coverage in mainstream and respected media. Rayman60 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches found a few mentions here and there but certainly nothing outstandingly better yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "son of the directors of Cadbury" who did the typical very minor things for someone with some inherited money,WP is not Who's Who. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congregational LMS Samoan Church (Ekalesia LMS Toefuataina Samoa)[edit]

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

No sources or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is a poor article, but it relates to a denomination, not a local church. We habitually allow articles on denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This denomination plays a major role in the history of Samoa. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Kpozo[edit]

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

So far only one appearance on the bench for AIK, and he's been on the team for a few months now. I say he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY both. JTtheOG (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:13, 13 January 2016 (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. Since his cup appearance was against a non-fully-pro-league club, it does not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails 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) 11:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. unsourced self-penned vanity page of a non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick english[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography of a living person. The author's username, User:Nickenglishofficial, suggests obvious COI issues. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources - does not meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - non-notable, no sources, self created promotion. Melcous (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could even be speedied under A7, as the article makes no claim of importance. —teb728 t c 06:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the nominator opted to PROD the article instead. (non-admin closure) CatcherStorm ^talk 05:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mirakaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. No citations. Blythwood (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, switched to prod because this looks quite uncontroversial. Blythwood (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any editor may create a redirect if they wish. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Lakes, New Jersey[edit]

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

Non-notable place with no sources established. I could not locate any reliable sources to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A legally recognised place with a population of 83,000 people is presumed to be notable per WP:GEOLAND. However, a search on the State of New Jersey web site doesn't reveal any gazetted localities with that name. Can anyone confirm or deny that there is a "City of Twin Lakes" in that state? The only reference I can find to a "Twin Lakes" is a site in Andover Township, New Jersey. If there is no such thing as "City of Twin Lakes", I vote to rework this article so that it refers to that lake. Again per GEOLAND, named natural features are presumed to be notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". De Guerre (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"anybody confirm or deny" isn't the basis for inclusion in WP; The official state website is conclusive. The larger of the two very ordinary ponds seems to be > 30 acres, the smaller > 5 acre. No article here, I think. — Neonorange (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a possibility that I am not smart enough to figure out the official state web site of New Jersey. De Guerre (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Google Maps is good 'first look' site when trying to confirm existence; some of the U.S. states official websites can be rather arcane. Since this was a hoax article Google Maps was a quick confirmation of likely no existence, making it worthwhile to go thru the NJ website for WP:RS confirmation. (Looking further at the original article, the city motto was another clinker indicating 'hoax'. Thanks to alansohn who hoax-tagged for speedy only two days after creation. — Neonorange (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I've found no occurrence of 'Twin Lakes, New Jersey' or 'City of Twin Lakes, New Jersey' in any online reference: not in New Jersey Monthly (Top towns, list of 514 municipalities in New Jersey), Google Maps, newjersey.hometownlocator.com, Or, most tellingly, at [25], The Official Website of the State of New Jersey. The only location to show up with the name Twin Lakes is a lake, not a municipality. This article was tagged speedy delete, CDS G3. The town does not exist, yet the article includes a purported map; seems a hoax to me. — Neonorange (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Named natural features, such as Lakes, Mountain are generally considered notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Redirect to Kittatinny Valley State Park per Alansohn's reasoning. I can't find enough content for a stand-alone article myself. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Twin Lakes, two very small lakes, are already covered in Kittatinny Valley State Park. There was no article ever here; it was a deliberate hoax at the start; an article purporting to have a municipality as its subject, and using a bogus map pruporting to show the city. The original CSD 3 tag by alansohn was correct. And this part of WP:GEOLAND fits perfectly — "!Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. " and the already existing Kittatinny Valley State Park is a perfect fit; and already includes Twin Lakes information. — Neonorange (talk)

.

Objection —Wikicology has completely rewritten the article under discussion, and completely changed the subject, while keeping the same title. This, if it is not reverted, makes a mockery of the afd. Effectively he has closed the discussion by the back door, as there have been suggestions made and delete !votes supported, but now it is impossible to follow the discussion without going to the. Article history. I ask {{u|Wikicology} to revert his edits to the article in the interest of proper procedure. N—Neonorange (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original page was created by a new editor who is probably not familiar with content creation and article layout. Such an editor is likely not to be familiar with when and how to use infoboxes thereby creating a messy article. I believe, the aim of every Wikipedian is to build the encyclopedia. Nobody is interested in who win at WP:AfD and for this reason, I am a bit perplex by your statement that "This, if it is not reverted, makes a mockery of the afd". Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have redirected the page, to a different article, with a different name, an incorrect name 'Twin Lake', losing the history, thus deleting the history, as well as the content. Please respect the process, and revert your changes. You are making unilateral decisions in the midst of a process—the very opposite of concensus building. — Neonorange (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in anyway making unilateral decisions in the midst of a process and I've always been respecting the process. I corrected my error. It's actually "Twin Lakes" and not "Twin Lake". If you have any concern with the way the article was re-written, start a thread on the articles talk page and not here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is here—the effect of your edits is to blank the article—removing all the previous content and changing the subject of the article. The sequence of an afd should be discuss; have a consensus evaluated to have been reached, or not; implement the concensus. Not discuss, one participant unilaterally deletes content and changes subject, and creates an unrelated article. What's the purpose of the afd in the first place, then? Might as well toss this broken afd and begin a new afd on the new article. Or, more simply, and reasonably, you could just reverse your edits. — Neonorange (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no policy-based reason to revert my edits. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does. Your aggregated changes to Twin Lakes, New Jersey fall outside the permissible outcomes of an afd, as listed in the first paragraph of WP:AFD: "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy."

Converting an article into an entirely different article about a different subject isn't good practice in any case, much less during an AFD. You have essentially, during this AFD, deleted one article and created another. We started off with an article about a city; your edits changed it to an article about two small lakes which are already covered within Kittatinny Valley State Park. — Neonorange (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was formerly an utter hoax about a nonexistent city of 80,000. Now it is about a 29 acre puddle of a lake, and referenced to a website that does not appear to qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, since it lacks an identified editorial board or an identified editor, and publishes material from local businesses who wish to promote themselves. Fails WP:N:notability]] and perhaps verifiability. Others above have noted that this may be "Twin Lake" which is adequately described in the article about a park. I don't see the point of a standalone article without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Edison (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created as a hoax, was tagged as a hoax and should have been speedily deleted as a hoax. There is nothing listed in the State of New Jersey locality search. There is no such place anywhere in Essex County or in the state that has the population as described. The one source provided in the repurposed article provides nothing more than geographic coordinates. Per WP:GEOLAND - "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." In the absence of any meaningful content, a mention in the article for where this lake is located might be appropriate. There is no justification for a standalone article, either for a hoax city or the real lake. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Kittatinny Valley State Park#Twin Lakes. Usually we should maintain edit history after a redirect to assist future editors, but not here, where the original article was a hoax. (That purported map was easily identified as a map of Essex County, which doesn't have a municipality matching the description in the article.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Arxiloxos. De Guerre (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social justice[edit]

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

This page is full of original research and is unencyclopedic and reads like an academic paper or article trying to push a certain point of view. ModernGeek (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Not a valid reason for deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is not a valid AfD suggestion, is it? Greglocock (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - impenetrable jargonese. Greglocock (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article has been here since the beginning and social justice is a well-known concept; no attempt by nom to pursue WP:BEFORE was done before nomination, and this feels disruptive, so a speedy keep can indeed be asked for. Nate • (chatter) 07:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Would say Speedy Keep but in addition to a lousy nomination, SK requires no delete !vote at all, seemingly without respect to their validity/merit. AfD is not cleanup, the article is self-evidently not all original research such that deletion is needed, "impenetrable jargonese" is not relevant, etc. Subject is obviously notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is notable but it does indeed need work. For example, the lead credits the term to Luigi Taparelli which seems quite a dubious claim as he used it in Italian in the 1840s while the OED has William Thompson using it in English in 1824. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion rationale presented. Reso lute 19:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One wonders the intentions behind this nomination. The fact that a reader might struggle to understand an article does not mean it should be eliminated. That it may collide with a reader’s political views does not merit deletion. Original research means that an idea is new. The article is about a key concept with a long history and an obvious notability, delineated in the article itself, and featured in most literature about justice. It is older than when Plato and Socrates wrestled with it. The term itself was coined in the 19th Century, an elder among us. That the article needs work, there is no doubts. But to lightly delete the work of hundreds of editors through the years is not part of the Wikipedia spirit. Moreover, to totally free this article from its jargon would mean to dilute it. After all, Wikipedia is to educate. Rather than tagging an article for deletion with a few words that fail to provide a reasonable argument users should work to improve it. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a mechanism of review in place for accepting these types of nominations (WP:BEFORE)? Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 04:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but deleting it won't solve the problem. -The Great iShuffle (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More importantly the "original research" should be removed if it exists, and the page improved - but that goes for everywhere in wikipedia. Deleting does not fix the content. Koncorde (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup like a few other million other articles but not deletion. Here are some reliable sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep not a valid reason for deletion.2.98.117.9 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on the Hadith[edit]

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

While well meaning, this article is one of the most elaborate examples of a synthesis of published material I've seen in nine years. Although there are ample sources, most of them are not directly relevant to the subject of a supposed "debate on hadith." Indeed, the only debate seems to be one that the author's creator has posited by adding in numerous sources that are unrelated to the overall point s/he is trying to make. Of those sources, many of them are primary, and links directly to polemicized translations of the Qur'an by one camp or the other; other sources are simply polemical articles written by adherents of the Qur'an Alone movement, a fringe movement in the Muslim world that doesn't have the weight or recognition to engage in any sort of debate with this manufactured term "traditional Muslims" that the article uses to refer to 99.99% of Muslims. The rest is simply a collection of opinion articles which, in and of themselves, might be RS on the topics they address...but they don't address this topic "debate on hadith" which the author seems to have collected third party sources on to create an article on a topic which isn't one of prominent debate between the two supposed sides. This is a clear example of a Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOTESSAY violation. It might happen to be a good example of original research, but that still isn't allowed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this for speedy for being 100% OR and SYNTH but the tag was removed. Then I redirected it to Criticism of hadith and that too was reverted. I tried to talk about the revert but the guy who had reverted me said he had no idea what the topic was about and will not be able to participate in any debate. Seeing this, I did not edit the article again and waited for an uninvolved editor to AFD it or nuke it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't reflect what RSs say about "Debate on the Hadith". It's an original essay sourced by primary sources, polemical literature and sundry web pages. Eperoton (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Blythwood (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Also, the author's citation style is atrocious. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ah yes, I forgot about this one after some discussion on its talk page. Anyway, it violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTESSAY. I could've also sworn that I had once seen a guideline that disapproves of debate-style writing, but I cannot seem to find it now. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It was a template that specifically addresses the issue: Template:Debate - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete- Initially FreeatlastChitchat deleted this article citing Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria No A10 which amounted to an abuse of the rule. This attempt was foiled and the article was defended by other editors, like The5thForce, and restored. A new attempt has now emerged. It appears to be a coordinated effort of creating a non-genuine discussion between half a dozen people all in support of the articles re deletion .This is exactly what as was done to the other article titled ”Sex in reference to the Quran”. Obviously, these deletions are not personal but do clearly have the appearance of an agenda at work. Perhaps its purpose is to monopolise all articles on Islam at Wikipedia. They appear to be succeeding, given this level of persistence and dedication to delete articles that are not in-line with their agenda. There are so many other articles that are poorly written across Islamic pages of Wikipedia that are ignored or perhaps condoned by the above. I doubt if any of the above people have contributed a useful article to Wikipedia. I suppose there is nothing incorruptible; not even an open forum such as that of Wikipedia. It’s a shame. This has become tedious YdhaW (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@YdhaW: Wikipedia is not a forum and should not be used as a publisher of your own research. Besides, your articles are just a few drops in the sea of deleted articles (take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam/archive for example), so please don't think that there is an agenda against you. There is only an agenda against articles that do not follow the rules of Wikipedia. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initially FreeatlastChitchat deleted this article citing Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria No A10 which amounted to an abuse of the rule.. OMG do tell me how I did that, seeing that I am not an admin and do not have the tools to do so. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt look like it has many (or any) reliable 3rd party sources. cӨde1+6^TP 01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no debate on the Hadith, and Quranic Muslims are such a small fringe of the Ummah that the article is more like a free promotion for them than an actual debate. If there were no hadith, people wouldn't know how to pray or when, for example. There is a real debate between scholars of Islam but this is not documented in the article, so either delete it or write it again to show the distinction between "authentic" and "the rest" of hadith's. This could be in the main article still. 92slim (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

If there were no hadith, ISIS wouldn't be running amok chopping off heads and raping sex-slaves, with the whole region steeped in a medieval dark age. But that's kool, at least these 'muslims' know how to 'pray', rite? lolz. cӨde1+6^TP 02:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's unrelated to the point I was making, fortunately. --92slim (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only as much as your "if there were no hadith..." rant, was unrelated to this discussion. cӨde1+6^TP 13:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Monster by Mistake. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monster aus Versehen[edit]

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

The show in question is actually a Canadian animated television series titled Monster by Mistake. I listed the German-language version of the article in the languages section of the Monster by Mistake article instead. Railer-man (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monster by Mistake. I have already done this, the discussion can be closed. Sources state that this is a Canadian production that was also aired by a German TV station.[26] Deleted also the wrong entry in List of German television series. Ben Ben ^(talk) 13:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Railer-man: Fortunately you did not list the German article: de:Monster aus Versehen. Ben Ben ^(talk) 13:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TVG2#English programming. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Rider's Story[edit]

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

Questionably notable TV show article as none of this currently suggests better satisfying WP:TVSHOW and the best my searches found were only these links. As best, this would be best mentioned a closely linked article but I see no noticeable targets. Notifying tagger DanielRigal. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Horse Racing TV. Through Google News, I was able to find a passing mention about an actor from the show published in Blockshopper.com, and that's it. This story should be ridden somewhere else and not on an encyclopedia like this. 和DITOR E tails 03:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TVG2#English programming (network was acquired by another entity). Nine episodes suggests this was an attempt at generic bio programming to fill dead time that didn't go much further than that. Nate • (chatter) 07:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the above I was confused, as I had no recollection of having tagged this article, so I was relieved to see that it was more than 5 years ago and hence that I am not necessarily losing my marbles. More to the point the article doesn't seem to be gaining any. It is still more or less the same inadequate stuff as it was back then. Nobody can say that we didn't give it a chance but 5 years with no improvement is quite long enough. A redirect is the best it can hope for. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'm fine with a delete, but since it is in the list on the TVG2, no harm redirecting as per Mrschimpf. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skibbe Wiffleball League (SWBL)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Seiding WP:APPNOTE to Reddogsix. Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local sports league. The article from The Columbus Dispatch notwithstanding, this subject ain't close to satisfying WP:ORG or WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources and a non-encyclopedia subject of this character should be held to the strictest interpretation of the notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, easily, as this comes nowhere near meeting our notability standards. The The Columbus Dispatch article doesn't even mention the league in its prose, so that article can't be counted towards "significant coverage." -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Dumais[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't assert basis for notability nor provide evidence of it. References are to her own LinkedIn page. PK T(alk) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without objection to redirecting. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYCR-TV[edit]

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

A PROD was filed by user:Bejnar, but it was removed by a new user whose only actions were the removal of a dozen PROD templates. Instead of restoring the PROD, I am turning it into an AFD. The original PROD rationale was "lack of notability, receives no indepenent coverage, fails the general notability guidelines" The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sixth o f March 05:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cebu Catholic Television Network#CCTN stations per common outcomes of network stations originating little to no original programming themselves. Nate • (chatter) 07:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect for the reasons I expressed in the PROD, namely lack of notability, because it has not received independent coverage and thus fails the general notability guidelines. Generally speaking the other TV call letter combos in the CCTN stations list do not have redirects, because they, like this one, are just repeater stations, and the search term that would be used is "CCTN", see their website, which does not even list their repeaters, see the search here for confirmation. --Bejnar (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no harm in keeping this as a redirect. Even if CCTN plays down the calls for their stations except for flashing them when legally required, the broadcast authority of the Philippines has them listed and that's what they broadcast. Nate • (chatter) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that it is not known as "DYCR-TV". --Bejnar (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter; the common naming pattern with North American and Filipino station articles is that the call letters are the main means of identifying a station in an article. It's harmless to have DYCR redirect to CCTN in case someone is looking for it in that manner. Nate • (chatter) 06:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are for navigation. A redirect for a station name that it is not known by is useless. Redirects are cheap, but not free. --Bejnar (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, we nearly always redirect official government calls for a repeater to their mother network or station. This is my last time saying this. Nate • (chatter) 07:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Minikin[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby union, has not played in a major competition WWGB (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails the relevant guideline, and cannot find any reliable secondary coverage that would let the subject clear GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Cruz Brooks[edit]

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

Misplaced AfC submission moved to mainspace by redlink account. Non-notable beyond any doubt. No coverage whatsoever. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable on evidence given. Blythwood (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this is not yet fully formed to be a solidly acceptable encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kapalikulangara Sree Mahavishnu Temple[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Opencooper (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a shortage of English language sources is unfortunate but irrelevant. Curro2 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Curro2: A lack of sources is quite relevant. There is no such guideline saying that sources should be assumed to exist, but on the contrary, our notability guideline says that "notability requires verifiable evidence ... No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" If you are aware of non-English sources on the subject, do bring them up. See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There_must_be_sources. Opencooper (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Liechtenstein[edit]

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

A synthesis of different events with different organizers completely lacking sources. The promise that German wiki has more is disappointing for it has the same scant info. the suggestion by the infobox that this topic is related to other countries is unproven. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I spent a few hours getting this article up to snuff. It's not a big deal (a cow contest that crowns its winner as "Miss Liechtenstein" seems to be more popular [27][28][29]), but it's a real, sporadic contest and it passes WP:GNG. See in particular the citations to Liechtensteiner Vaterland, Triesenberg Dorfspiegel, and Blick. A2soup (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and A2soup's sources and improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the research and you proved the article is a synthesis of different unrelated events which awarded the same title and each received minor local coverage. I've changed the first sentence to reflect that. Since we have an article about the title, not a given event, the fantastic cow contest that awards the same title should also be included here as it is just as important as the other sporadic shows that parade women like livestock on a stage. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand how beauty pageants work a bit. The contests are sometimes sponsored by different groups from year to year, but the title is in theory the same. Whether the contest is organized and sponsored by the Miss Voralberg Corporation or Verein Miss Liechtenstein, it is a contest for the same title, that of Miss Liechtenstein. This continuity is made explicit in the Triesenberg Dorfspiegel and Blick sources. The cow contest is a different contest, and even though the title awarded has the same name, it is obviously a different title. None of the pageant articles mention the cow contest or vice versa. If you think the cow contest deserves its own article, it should be a separate article with Miss Liechtenstein being a dab page. A2soup (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand beauty pageants better then your average person. Because this title evidently not trademarked, you and I could go sponsor the Miss Liechtenstein contest next year with no connection to the previous human or cow events. We could even hold competing contests with each other and we could even hold the event in another country like Miss Afghanistan was held in Germany. There are at least 4 Miss Liechtenstein contests including the cows, none of which are connected to each other much more then the Miss Liechtenstein contest I'm throwing in my backyard next month. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that it's disorganized, but the sources explicitly attest continuity with past pageants while omitting any mention of the cow contest. Whether this continuity is legally enforced is a different matter. Feel free to clarify this in the article, but I feel that mentions of different sponsors are sufficient. A2soup (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purdy Schoolhouse[edit]

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

(cf discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Knapp). The contents of this orphan is now incorporated into Purdy, Washington. There were two Purdy schoolhouses, and this article conflates them. Neither were WP:NOTABLE. In particular the second one from 1900 was not deemed sufficiently heritage given that it was (apparently) just knocked down to put up a house. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Mood Ishqholic Hai[edit]

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

The song fails WP:NSONG. All the content is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; insufficient coverage, and nothing to suggest inherent notability, either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG per sources in the article; see Aaj Mood Ishqholic Hai § References. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie B. Stewart[edit]

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

Former president of a bank. Most of the article reads like a resume and was created by a single purpose account in 2008. The article heavily relies on primary sources. Mkdw ^talk 08:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original creator of this posting. Sorry if I didn't adhere to criteria for bios; I was using this and a couple of other posts as a way to figure out how Wikipedia works, and was learning as I went along. My reasons for contributing the article about Mr. Stewart was that I had heard he was writing a scholarly article about the way the Fed Reserve of NY worked during 9/11, and I thought that was of historic importance. While his background is primarily as a banking exec, I thought that the people who served on the Fed's Board of Governors during this period were of historical significance.

Patfett ^talk 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some individuals are deemed to be important such as government officials who hold public office, but typically individuals such as executives who have served on boards, even for notable companies aren't inherently notable by proxy. They need to demonstrate their own notability. WP:ANYBIO recommends that an individual win a significant award, or that they have an "enduring historical record in his or her specific field" which will be established from significant and in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy if needed, as simply none of this suggests even minimally better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to draft I do indeed think each President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank is a major public official, especially as an exofficio member of the Federal Open Market Committee, the 12 most importat people in the US Financial system, , and that we need a bio on every one of them, past and present (this has not I think come up here before, because usually they have become notable in some other position first) But in any case, I'm fairly sure that more refs could be found. If the article is not kept, it should be moved to draft. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the positions this individual has held render him notable. The article is poorly written, but isn't what I would call promotional, and so I see no good argument to userfy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a recommendation to create an article about the national park. Der yck C. 18:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarhal[edit]

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

Defunct and unimportant Elias Z 06:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The national park is notabley and does not seem to have an article. If someone has enough energy to start from this article and to re-work it into an article about a national park, then keep. If not, delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the two refs don't mention "Tarhal" and as for the external link, it doesn't say that there is a Tarhal national park, only that The region of Upper Akkar/Dunniyeh ... is included in the unique national park foreseen in the Development Plan... and Since the year 2000, Mada has been working for the creation of a natural park in the mountains of North Lebanon. (not national park). The About us section of that website confirms that Tarhal is a network of lodges..., but not finding anything to indicate that this is a notable network of lodges: Noyster (talk), 12:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that the park in question is Quammoua, redlinked from Natural areas in Lebanon, with alternative transliterations "Qamoua", "Kamoua", "Khamoua'h", "Kamouah", "Quammouah", "Quamouah", and probably many more. Not sure what the Arabic spelling is. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I bid you to look at this edit in the article's history after I pointed out to the now blocked user the error he made. He wrote the article on the assumption that Tarhal is a region in Lebanon. For this reason, and since the organization that the article is about is now defunct (and was never notable) I nominated the article for deletion. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre of Black Knowledge[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and even the notability of the band Black Messiah is questionable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as if the band themselves may be questionably notable, I'm not seeing why we would move it there even if that is commonly used. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Loyd[edit]

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

Non-notable college athlete, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC UW Dawgs (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what is non-notable about the winningest men's basketball player at a D1 school in a prominent conference. I sincerely hope that your UW fandom isn't bleeding over into your objectivity here. Athies22 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists Oregon's achievements as his achievements. Did he win individual conference awards or other individual awards that are notable? and is he playing professional anywhere? Littlekelv (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like he got quite a bit of coverage - not as much for being any kind of school recordholder as a basketball player, but for his transition to football after four years on the Oregon basketball team. He had a completely unremarkable football season, but it looks like it's pretty rare for players to utilize a fifth year of college eligibility by switching sports. I'm not sure if this would fall under WP:BLP1E, but the story was covered by the Associated Press, CBS Sports, USA Today, NBC Sports, ESPN, NFL.com, and SI.com. He has played in Europe with ETB Wohnbau, but that looks like it's in Pro A, the second-highest league in Germany, so that doesn't factor into notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple click on the "news" link above shows ample significant third party coverage in reliable sources on the subject. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Article needs to be edited to include this information, not deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm trying hard to be consistent here in my application of the GNG "significant coverage" standard as we apply it to college athletes; sometimes that means a "delete" when there's lots of media mentions but the coverage does not rise to the level of "significant," and sometimes it means keeping an article (like this one) when there is significant national-level coverage, but the subject is not "deserving" of a stand-alone article on the subjective merits. This guy's senior year of NCAA Division I basketball may be summarized as "seven points and 4.7 assists per game his senior year," and his 4-year career as "played in a school-record 144 career games and 97 Oregon wins". He was a decent contributor on a good team; that's not the stuff that hall-of-fame careers are made of. The reason he ultimately received significant coverage was he was a rare instance of a college athlete who was able to take advantage of the NCAA's fifth-year eligibility rule. As a football wide receiver, he appeared in nine games, caught four passes for 19 yards, and played on an Oregon Ducks team that appeared in the last BCS championship game. He's a footnote with coverage. My ideal solution? We should have an article about the NCAA's fifth-year rule, this subject should be one of the listed examples, and this article should be a redirect. Until someone creates that article about the NCAA's fifth-year rule, however, I think we're stuck with this stand-alone article about Johnathan Loyd. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm It's a point, that's true. But our measure is "significant coverage" not "significant accomplishments" -- Rudy Ruettiger for example: 1 game, 2 plays, 1 tackle. But it became a movie. While this example isn't as extreme, it's part of the points to consider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets gng with sources nbcsports.com, nfl.com, etc. It doesn't matter if it's not because he's the greatest basketball player, but because of his switch to football - it's still significant coverage, and that equates to notability. Jacona (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Meh. Whereas Dirtlawyer's "weak keep" is probably the technically correct outcome, the accomplishments are so minimal that I really can't muster more than a "weak meh". Cbl62 (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Crumb[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria - little or no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~Tentative Keep~~ - reliable secondary sources do exist, such as Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance, but coverage is sparse. Attempting to find more references and improve the article -- samtar ^whisper 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo Finance results (1, 2) are not secondary sources, they are press releases hosted on Yahoo (note the bylines and the corporate contact info at the bottom). The Bloomberg reference is just a corporate profile that has likely been submitted by the company itself, as the text is nearly the same as at the Zazu Metals website (1). Citobun (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Citobun: I stand by my tentative keep (for now!) but the more I look the more likely it is I'll be a turncoat. How does The Guardian (blog) and CBC look? -- samtar ^whisper 16:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Few reliable sources do exist in bussinesswire and guardian but certainly no scholarly references so far. Pixarh (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Citobun: Hi, I have been following the founder of BitGold Josh crumb he is starting to become a major influence in the gold economic space, I have no associaton with the company.. I can add more secondary sources if you wish???

@Citobun,Samtar: I have added a few more secondary sources, is there any sources you want me to delete?

Adding more secondary scources : I will add more secondary sources now.

@Citobun: I have added some more sources, please let me know If you want me to do anything else?

@Samtar: Please let me know if there's anything else you want me to do to keep the article from being deleted, I have added some third party sources.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as he has started some ventures but there's perhaps nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some trivial coverage and mentions of him giving quotes in newspapers, but I haven't found any coverage of Crumb himself. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Zidian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy delete for repost declined because article was different - yet there is nothing in the new article that speaks to the reasons the last AfD resulted in a delete vote. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid, let alone a tabloid of the WWE. Nothing of substance here. The sources are weak, and the part that might gain some possibility of saving is based on the "low quality" Youtube videos, which is not only not using a reliable source but the "low quality" is original research, since it is sourced to the videos themselves and thus an editors own view that they are low quality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically states "she was an unsuccessful contestant, someone created a fake profile, it was not her". Fails WP:GAN big time. MPJ -US 13:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 09:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was an article now exists about the court case, props to NewYorkActuary, so I'm withdrawing this nomination and redirecting the BLP to it in accordance with WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Maines[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, parked on a single source, of a person notable primarily for her involvement in a state Supreme Court case. An article about the case would likely be justified — but a standalone WP:BLP of her, as a person, is not warranted as a separate topic from the event. And that's especially true if you have to delve into privacy-violating and completely unsourced statements about her personal life to get it beyond two sentences. Delete, without prejudice against creation of an event article about the court case. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Blythwood (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bearcat -- an article about the case might be more appropriate than an article about the plaintiff. But right now, there is no article on the case (otherwise, I would have proposed a "redirect" instead of a "keep"). As to sourcing, there is some stuff out there. The Boston Globe did an in-depth piece back in 2011 and the Huffington Post has been writing articles on the case (including articles about the lower court decisions). It's a pity that whoever created this article didn't do a better job of it, but a better job can be done. I've removed the unsourced BLP material and added a "Further Reading" section that includes links to the Boston Globe article and one of the Huffington Post articles. In finding this material, I also ran across an Associated Press report on the state Supreme Court ruling (but neglected to add that to the article). In all, the instant article can be expanded and, if necessary, renamed (so as to be about the case, and not the person). NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rename/redirect to Doe v. Clenchy (new article) or to the entry at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders#Notable cases until she passes a notability guideline in the future.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the name of the case (the articles I read didn't seem to mention it). I created a new article under the case name, using what little relevant information existed in the instant article, along with the links I described above. I'll be striking my "keep" and changing it to a "redirect". NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm accordingly going to withdraw this nomination and go straight to a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doe v. Clenchy. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The rename can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 04:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with the longest marriages[edit]

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

This non-notable list of non-notable people is a magnet for original research. Long marriages are trivia; the kind of thing you'd see in Guinness, not in an encyclopedia. I urge editors to review the list's talk archives to understand the original research used to determine inclusion in the list. For example, a USA Today article about a Haitian couple's marriage was rejected because editors were unable to independently verify the claim. With one exception, none of the people in the list are independently notable. (That exception is Daniel F. Bakeman, whose entry is supported only by a dubious findagrave reference.) Many entries are supported only by unreliable sources, such as paid obituaries, and most of the others by one-off human interest news reports (WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS). Finally, the page's maintainers arbitrarily declare subjects 'likely dead' if there's no news coverage about them in the last year. This is likely a WP:BLP problem. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS concern who gets an article entry, not who appears on a list. The list guide reads: "If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation [will suffice]". Every article in Wikipedia is a "magnet for original research", and that is why we patrol them. When there is controversy, we explicate that in the article. We have age controversies all the time about actors and musicians and gymnasts, we even have a category for it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep issues with the quality of the article as it currently stands are separate from notability. This topic of this list is clearly notable, as you can see by the multitude of coverage of "longest marriage." FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete The list is very difficult to verify and could miss eligible marriages from countries with poor records or many records would be paper only. It contains mostly entries from USA where records are better. And only a few from China which has long life expectancy . Birth and marriage records for very old people are poorly maintained in China. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just as true for any oldest people list as well, e.g., List of oldest living people or Oldest people. The fact the information may be disputed or difficult to verify doesn't make the list non-notable or unverifiable. It just means that it may be incomplete. But many lists on Wikipedia are incomplete, that's not a valid reason to delete. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China is 67th in life expectancy, so not "long life expectancy". All of Wikipedia is about verifiable information. All information, other than scientific constants, have a information half-life, where they are superseded by new information or more accurate information. The number of planets in the solar system just changed, maybe we should give up on that list too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where's the RS talking about this collective group? Scattered reports of long marriages, collected here by WP editors, don't count. EEng (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are applying the article standard to the list standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm applying the standard for lists (from WP:N):

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

So where is it? EEng (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is "one accepted reason," as your quote indicates. Another one is, per WP:CSC: "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers." The list is reasonably short and I'd say it's useful and interesting to readers. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, at 112K, it exceeds the 32K guideline by a factor of four, and it's not useful for navigation since zero of the entries are linked (being nonnotable) so that there's nowhere to navigate to. That leaves interesting. Not sure what's interesting about the names of the couple in the 17th-longest marriage, with nothing else being supplied. EEng (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way this list could ever be complete. Without a reliable source listing longest marriages, this is the List of longest marriages discovered by Wikipedia editors. Pburka (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No list is complete, there will always be more popes and presidents. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More like longest marriages discovered by reliable sources, we compile, we do not discover. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've examined all reliable sources? Pburka (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources like the Guinness Book of Records and the Old Farmer's Almanac do record such extremes and so the topic just passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a topic given coverage in independent sources, as identified by Andrew D. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is interesting, plus useful for comparison, regardless of complete accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzypeg7 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies LISTN. ONEVENT and NOTNEWS do not apply to a list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject in itself is notable. The nominator's concern regarding original research is not a good argument for deletion; if claims are inserted into the article that are not backed by reliable sources, then the proper response is to remove such claims, not to delete an article about a notable subject with sourceable claims. —Lowellian (reply) 10:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The title of this list is extremely misleading. This is not a list of people with the longest marriages. Far too many people with long marriages are left out for that title to be accurate or fair to the unindoctrinated reader. Given the list's bias against people from the majority of nations on earth with inadequate records on this subject, this list page would be much more fairly titled "List of people with long marriages." David in DC (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes the criteria of LISTN per Andrew D.'s sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "List of people with long marriages" as the current title is quite impossible to meet. Good with delete too. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possible rename but a notable concept. AusLondonder (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per all in favour of keeping, especially "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" in fact. Extremely sexy (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I'll work with other editors on the page to fix existing original research issues and patrol it for new OR. Pburka (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Spiritual Cleansing[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR. References fail to support article subject. reddogsix (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following source reference which was going to be added to the article does support the article subject: http://eomtc.com/cleansing/index.html. Good faith edits should not be discounted according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies/Conduct --Kabashel (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the references are independent, reputable sources that assert the subject is notable. ubiquity (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the comparative religion side duplicated by ritual purification. Blythwood (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail GNG with no reliable sources for this fringe theory about a connection between different religions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all of the above and even if we disregard that stuff, the page is way too small. Scrolling down is rendered pointless to read the whole article (at least from Google Chrome on a MacBook Pro) . Jackninja5 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] [PDF]7 - Red Bank Register Archive 209.212.22.88/Data/RBR/1980-1989/1988/1988.03.07.pdf MIDDLETOWN — The Preservationists Inc. sponsors ... Preservationist member Peg Cocoran, Port Mon- mouth. ... Muscenti, show chairman, at 291-1420 before.

[1]