Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 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) 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Gabutti[edit]

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

The first nomination closed with no consensus, so I'm nominating this article again. The notability problems I addressed last time are still present. Any reliable source and chart performance that is cited in this article is mostly about the groups he produced for, including Eiffel 65 (the popmatters review of eiffel 65's album doesn't even mention Gabutti one bit). The rest is basically just an uncited and unreferenced biography talking about successful songs he produced and/or wrote for, with no real in-depth coverage about him from any independent source whatsoever. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 23:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator seems to be correct that the article is just a list of successful ventures with which this person is associated. There doesn't seem to be any coverage of him specifically in reliable sources. This seems to be a case of inherited notability. It could be that there's coverage in Italian sources which I couldn't locate; if so, the article can be recreated with better sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing in-depth coverage of the person to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 25 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) 01:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instant-Wellbeing[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article, with advertorial overtones, about a musical group with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. As always, a musical group does not gain an automatic entitlement to keep a Wikipedia article just because it exists; proper sourcing, supporting a credible claim of notability, must be present to support one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no better context here with information and sourcing, nothing to suggest convincing otherwise for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show this passes notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 25 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) 01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenConf[edit]

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

Company and software product that does not seem to be notable - no evidence that it's any different from the competition. This article is basically an advert. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The promotional tone needs to be cut back a bit but the subject seems notable and covered in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article updated to reflect info from additional sourced materials. Entry more comprehensive than others in same industry (e.g., easychair) and comparable to other widely used software (e.g., slack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.230.160 (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the current sourcing seems notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks to me like nobody has checked the references!

#1 merely states that the company exists;

#2 explains its functionality and compares it with some other products, but makes no comment that could be taken as implying notability;

#3 mentions it in passing and doesn't provide any kind of analysis or endorsement;

#5 is another technical analysis of its usability - nothing at all to do with notability.

The only sources that could be taken to imply notability are #4, where the IEEE recommends it and #6, which is a blog page in a business software directory and review site. No reliable source is saying it's the leading product, an award winning product, or anything else notable. Statements about how widely used it is are unsupported.

So as I said - in what way does it stand out from the opposition such that it merits its own encyclopedia page? Andyjsmith (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: reference added to newspaper article referencing the software as the "leading web-based peer-review management system". Extensive listing of uses may be found at OpenConf.com/portfolio/ 104.228.230.160 (talk) 15:23, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Holecko[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has played several seasons in the Slovak Extraliga, which should be enough to meet our notability requirements.[1] (in Slovak) Rename to Peter Holečko, his full name. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to hockeydb.com, Holecko played in 431 career games in the Slovak Extraliga, thus he actually does easily meet criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 200+ games in the Slovak Extraliga meets #3 of WP:NHOCKEY (see Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA). Rlendog (talk) 14:19, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew C. Aronson[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. There is also another academic (psychiatrist) called Andrew C. Aronson. Tagged for notability for nearly 8 years; hopefully we can get it resolved now one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Career as a prep school (private, elite, expensive secondary school) teacher, with a stint teaching at the University of Maine during which he apparently ran a shop on the side. Author of several books used to teach Latin. The bar to deletion is that his textbooks garnered respectful reviews in academic journals. Borderline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely as I found nothing better and there's nothing convincingly better here. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence that the textbooks were widely used outside that small group of schools. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found 2 of his books in WorldCat, which have holdings of 11 and 2. Agricola44 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 19:25, 25 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 : Am I missing something - is it just a selfie that includes a turkey on the photo? Speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A11 (per author's admission on talk page) - Wikipedia is not a place for things made up one day. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey selfie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Importance not even asserted. Adam9007 (talk) 20:01, 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) 01:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ulla Olsson[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Deleted in 2006 at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local interest only. Geschichte (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete searches did not turn up all that many hits, even in Swedish - a language I do not know. And virtually nothing in English, only this :[2], which may be the same person. The article has been tagged since 2008; an editor added 2 sources in 2010 indicating that she then held the post of party chair in a municipality with a a pop. of 50,000. It's just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN local councillor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local councillor with no substantive claim of notability beyond her local area, and no evidence of reliable source coverage present to get her over WP:GNG — the sourcing here is entirely of the primary variety. I note that the article was recreated just one month after the deletion discussion, and should probably have been speedied G4 within minutes — but at this point I agree that it's better to have a new AFD than to just rely on a ten-year-old discussion. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 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) 01:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fionn Ó Lochlainn[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this can meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I found a few links at Books, News and browsers but still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:22, 25 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. Consensus is clearly keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas D. Taylor[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of subject. Rational is "This bio was posted without my knowledge, approval or input. I do not want a bio bio posted, which is my right as a private individual. The individual posting this does not know me or anything about me. The bio is filled with intentional errors. For my employment, it lists positions that I have never held at companies I have never worked for. This bio lists academic affiliations that I have never had. It states that I initially published about exosomes in the 1980's, when it was actually in the 1970's. It states that I am affiliated with journals that I have no knowledge of or interactions with. If these journals are using my name, it is without my permission." Mdann52 (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous recent AfD's outcome (speedy keep) that the individual is notable. If there are any errors in the article, they should be corrected using reliable sources, of course, but I'm getting the notion that this person is throwing up a lot of things to see if anything sticks to avoid potential professional embarrassment. No individual has a right to request a removal of an article about themselves at any rate. However, he can certainly point us to reliable sources for fixing any errors. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous nomination and WP:SOFIXIT. sst ✈ 05:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and do feel it will pass WP:PROF#C1 with plenty of citations and per DGG here .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 25 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) 01:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internationale Musische Werkstatt[edit]

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

Overly detailed article about a non-notable workshop, basically serving as webhost for the organisation with zero independent information (Google did only find a few passing mentions, mostly from affiliated websites). I would usually just redirect the page to Verband Christlicher Pfadfinderinnen und Pfadfinder, but as it's a fully developed long article, a formal AfD is probably the better course of action. Note: I have already added a summary section in Verband Christlicher Pfadfinderinnen und Pfadfinder to prepare an eventual "Delete and redirect". GermanJoe (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From my search, there is some minor media but nothing too substantive and nothing I could find in reputable secondary sources. It may benefit from a real thorough search for references if that hasn't been done. If there are such references, that would be meaningful and may change my delete vote. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Only gnews is the Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 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 merge to United_S.C.. Already merged, no need to keep this open Fenix down (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United S.C. seasons[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article, but I also can not see that this article is needed and the content could be in the main article. Qed237 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: When created, it was not known that the demise of United would happen so soon, however, now that we know they are gone the article should just be simply merged with United. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I have nominated it for speedy deletion and have moved the necessary information to United accordingly. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Even as nominator, I realise now that merge is the best alternative. Qed237 (talk) 14:17, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Makotsi[edit]

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

Article is about a person without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The claim for notability appears to be his positions on university student councils. That is not sufficient to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the lack of significant coverage means WP:GNG is not met either. Whpq (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted, no significant coverage from reliable sources that I could find, though there are some references in second tier type media outlets. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student unions are not a level of political office that satisfies WP:NPOL, and there's no claim here that he's ever held any level of office that would get him over that bar. Further, the sourcing here is almost entirely dependent on primary sources and non-notable blogs — I see one source that I'd be willing to accept as counting for something toward WP:GNG in principle (link #5, AllAfrica.com, is a reprint of an article from The Star (Kenya)), but even that source just provides a glancing namecheck of his existence rather than being about him. A person does not get an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because he exists; reliable source coverage about him must be present to support one, but this article doesn't have that. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 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) 01:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimber OS[edit]

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

Unreleased web operating system currently in alpha; the linked website just has a YouTube video of the software. Fails WP:NSOFT with no sources. A Google search for "jimber os" returns this article, two YouTube links and somebody using the phrase unrelatedly on Twitter. McGeddon (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unreleased doesn't bother me in the slightest, neither does alpha; I have seen things in the past with one or both of those attributes which could well pass WP's threshold for inclusion. The official website being sparse isn't even necessarily a big deal (but is certainly a significant warning flag). My position is entirely based on failure to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY through at least one good WP:RS, and it looking probable that it will not be established in the short term. --Murph9000 (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Unreleased, unreferenced, unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOFT with no sources and unreleased and also fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Looks like self-advertising to me. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest minimally convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Birch (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR ("significant roles in multiple notable [productions]") with only a single role in a TV show: other performances listed are two school shows, and being listed among 15 of the "Community Ensemble" in a 2015 play. McGeddon (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No real coverage to be found of this guy. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 23:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet enough information and sources to better satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ait meslayene[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even any minimal signs of better sourcing as the listed link is questionable and also not to mention, the entire article is questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPOSER ,WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:36, 25 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. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Lewis (singer)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)~~ Speedy keep per Michig.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly successful in South Africa where she has celebrity status. Some of these may not be reliable but some certainly are: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Afrikaans coverage will almost certainly exist. --Michig (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Michig's reasoning, the citations currently on the article as well as the publications that the channel24 sources linked to. I'm sorry to say this, but if you say that you "can't find any evidence of notability", then this must be a troll nomination. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 20:28, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Kamau[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. The BBC source is not enough for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)~~ Speedy keep per sources provided below. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Glad to see someone so intimately involved in building up Wikipedia's African coverage has been attracted by this article. I have not yet had much time to expand on it yet but will be returning to it later. I take your comments in a constructive spirit but I must say I am surprised you are critical of such an assertive source as that from the BBC. Indeed, it picks her out as a major contributor to the music scene in Africa and is based on an entire programme devoted to her work. Not many Kenya musicians have enjoyed such coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Kenyan musicians rarely enjoy such coverage but that alone is not enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC article is enough for me to indicate notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established, per above. Systemic bias is a bug, not a feature, and nominator should knock it off. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Dr. Blofeld and The Drover's Wife:, I don't see how a single source will establish notability. Per WP:GNG, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Note that it refers to "sources" and not just a single source. The Drover's Wife, I understand your concern about systemic bias but that's not the case here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it's just one source? Business Daily Africa, CapitalFM and Daily Nation are perfectly fine too. Mentioned here and here, which appears to be a reliable Kenyan news portal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 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 after discounting sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Percival[edit]

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

Autobiography of low-notability young businessman. No significant coverage per WP:BIO from multiple secondary WP:RS, just some puff pieces in the local press, plus two inclusions on vanity award lists of businesspeople compiled by low-notability business blogs. Sole claim to fame seems to be a regional win in an entrepreneur award run by a bank, and his company getting a few mentions in local press. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:14, 18 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 - Citations include the Telegraph (national newspapers). The Richtopia list has been refereed to by Richard Branson and is published in the national paper, the Daily Mirror - so is notable http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/age-is-not-a-barrier-to-success. Additionally, it has been used to cite other people of notability on Wikipedia, with significantly fewer sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganhuyag_Chuluun_Hutagt. Refs also include reputable and notable University publications. 1pwalker3 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)— 1pwalker3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Similar notability of other local businessmen included in WP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1pwalker3 (talk • contribs)

Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF on Wikipedia may also fail notability guidelines. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is notable & from a NPOV, in the circumstances, based on the relevant NPOV and notability guidelines. There are significant national sources and your judgement on the notability of the "list" to which you refer is unfounded - with no significant evidence to the contrary supplied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1pwalker3 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)1pwalker3 (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are strong enough to demonstrate notability, which in some cases are better than other articles approved on Wikipedia. Various users have been involved in improving/editing the article also, which shows interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpercival (talk • contribs) 12:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Cpercival (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete From a cursory look at the sources, there seems to be a lot refering to him in the context of his companies, but not a lot focused on him. I'll keep looking, but this is a borderline notable/not notable case as far as I can see. Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His notability appears to be directly related to his companies success / his position in, and founding the company. So these references are appropriate in this context. 1pwalker3 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional sources are of clear notability to his success in business & entrepreneurial context. Meets notability criteria in my view. Spike1965 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins should please note that article creator User:Cpercival has changed username to User:Spike1965: [7]. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins should also note that User:NeemNarduni2 has only been a member of WP for 14 days and appears to be strongly against this subject and has not substance to his comments regarding deletion discussion, as per other members above. Please also note that, for the avoidance of doubt, "I" am not the subject of this article - despite NeemNarduni2's protests.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike1965 (talk • contribs)

Delete the only significant, reliable sources only provide a mere passing mention, I do not believe it is satisfactory depth of coverage. Borderline case but I lean toward not-notable. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 10:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note:. 1pwalker3 is a Confirmed sock of Spike1965. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spike1965.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV only passing references about the subject.Further Jigsaw Medical the company the subject founded in 2012 does not appear to be notable and has no corresponding article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 22 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 that the proposed redirect target is also at AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Carvell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Due to some events this past year, it has come to my attention that there are some articles and images regarding me and my former business on Wikipedia. And while eager and well-meaning, I believe a former associate of mine is responsible, at least in part, for this content. Both articles either contain some privileged information or general inaccuracies. I’m not really sure why this article still exists... at least not in its present state. I would have to agree with the article’s notation of questionable notability. Most of my career has been spent simply as a consultant at its base. Hardly noteworthy. It’s only been in the last couple of years that I’ve moved up to executive produce films like The Christmas Dragon and A Dog Named Gucci. And if that and other more notable events in recent years didn’t make enough noise to find their way to this page, I’m not sure what I’m still doing here. Heck, even our director for The Christmas Dragon, John Lyde, and many of its actors, producers, and companies should have an article before I should. Beyond that, the “Family and early life” is riddled with errors. The “1990s” and other areas are a mess, as well. And as for this photo of me, while it was provided to my company for use in press and promotion at that time, I’m not sure it was meant to be used in this way. Kevin carvell (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Flashpoint Studios. Clearly not notable as an actor, and people rarely become notable for being executive producers. While we have an article on the production company (which also looks dubious regarding notability) it may be worth redirecting there. I have removed the wholly unsourced 'Family and early life' section. --Michig (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flashpoint Studios per Michig. sst ✈ 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned, perhaps best known for that and there being nothing else for a convincingly better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User has also proposed that Flashpoint Studios be deleted. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no re-direct as Flashpoint Studios is under afd.The subject has not produced enough films to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 23 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) 01:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Connell[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Onyl part of any significance seems to be Picket Fences at a push. Working actor, but not notable. Sending WP:APPNOTE to SummerPhD. Boleyn (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly nothing to suggest better satisfying WP:CREATIVE and I would've frankly PRODed as that was also applicable. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:NACTOR ,WP:DIRECTOR and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:41, 25 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, CSD G5, Created by a banned or blocked user (Darcruz iyari) in violation of ban or block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksnipe Entertainment (Music Label)[edit]

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

Another recording label with no evidence of notability. It fails WP:GNG. Sources provided are blogs with no editorial oversight. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionably notable for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 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 speedy deleted, CSD G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Darcruz iyari) in violation of ban or block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksnipe Records[edit]

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

Another recording label with no evidence of notability. It fails WP:GNG. Sources provided are blogs with no editorial oversight. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darcruz iyari Crow^Caw 16:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is currently questionable for better notability with the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict resolution strategy[edit]

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

Is this really WP:NOTABLE? I couldn't establish that it is. Confusing and unsourced too, and tagged for notability for 8 years. Hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've tidied it up and added four sources. It takes me back to the 1980s, but once notable, always notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I'm convinced by Chiswick Chap's great work. Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 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) 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Harlow[edit]

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

I have not been able to find any verification for this article. Pretty light on details too. It should be deleted unless someone can find a RS Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't actually see active service in WW1, didn't live to be exceptionally old. No obvious reason why we should have an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, non-trivial sources can be located. All I could find were obituaries, which do not satisfy WP:N. Canadian Paul 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All soldiers in WWI do not automatically get Wikipedia articles because soldier; there has to be something substantive (and, even more importantly, reliably sourced) to write about a soldier than "he lived, he died, the end". But there's no substance, and no viable sourcing, here — being the "last surviving veteran" of a war would be a much more credible claim of notability if he'd actually been to the war, as opposed to just loitering around Halifax as a reservist until that war ended. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 24 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) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Foot 2003[edit]

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

Generally unreferenced series of Golden Foot YYYY, which add no value to the main Golden Foot page. The additional information here falls under WP:CRUFT. Merge not appropriate as all relevant info can already be found there. C 679 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

C 679 09:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication each iteration of the award has garnered sufficient significant coverage to warrant individual articles. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no need for separate articles. Giant Snowman 19:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No need for each one to have a stub article. If there's anything useful in the articles, they could be selectively merged. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 23 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. IMDB shows tons of films/tv shows, The sourcing isn't amazing but Google does bring up quite few which can be used... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Riebauer[edit]

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

Unsourced bio of an actor. The IMDb only gives 3 films, which contradicts the article where a much longer fuller career is claimed. Appears to fail GNG and WP:ACTOR Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDb lists more than 3 film credits - there's nearly 60 in total (a mix of films, TV films and TV shows). This source can be used to verify his dates and films and here's quite a detailed biography for starters. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet WP:NACTOR per user:Lugnuts. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:00, 24 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 all WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La's NTM[edit]

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

This article is about a hoax television show. Linguist111 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist means that it is a hoax article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no evidence that a Latin-American version of "America's Next Top Model" exists. Linguist111 (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reason:

La's Next Top Model (cycle 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La's Next Top Model (cycle 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La's Next Top Model (cycle 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete alll . not findable. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per nom. Citobun (talk) 13:51, 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 nomination withdrawn Ok, there's extensive sources including a sufficient number of reviews and others to pass WP:NFILMS. No need to waste more time here. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love You Baba[edit]

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

I think this is an issue of WP:TOOSOON to be nice here. The fact that the director could be a Guinness World Recorder is interesting but without any sources about it, I don't see much interest in the film director's goal here. The only sources I can find are [8][9][10] but I'm not seeing significant coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Lynch, Kevin (2015-02-20). "Oscars 2015: The Guinness World Records alternative Academy Awards". Guinness World Records. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Youngest Film Director
  From Shirley Temple to Macaulay Culkin, Hollywood has seen its fair share of precociously talented youngsters that have made a name for themselves in front of the camera.
  But how about behind it?
  Nepal's Saugat Bista, pictured above, was just 7 years and 340 days old when he sat in the director's chair to helm the movie Love You Baba which was released in Nepalese cinemas on 12 December 2014.
2. Gautam, Usha Wagle (2015-10-20). "Nepal's youngest director has grand plans for future". Gulf Times. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Saugat Bista, a child prodigy from Nepal, is the youngest director of full length feature film. A third grader, Bista, nine, directed Love You Baba and registered his name in the Guinness Book of World Records when he was seven.
  ...
  Bista’s Love You Baba was shown in a film festival in Japan where movies from 17 countries were screened.
3. Kafle, Shristi (2015-02-24). "Feature: Guinness brands Nepal's 7-year-old as youngest film director". Xinhuanet. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  This year, the tiny landlocked Himalayan country of Nepal was able to notch another distinct honor in the Guinness World Records.
  This was made possible by an extraordinary feat of Saugat Bista, a Nepali kid who, at the age of seven, became the world's youngest movie director.
  Saugat was given this recognition by Guinness World Records this week for professionally directing a full feature film at the age of seven.
  Born in January 2007, Saugat's directorial debut, Love You Baba, was released on December 12, 2014, when he was only seven years and 340 days old.
  Generally, a 7-year-old kid only wants to play, sing, dance or study. But Saugat has surprised the whole world by doing something really creative and extraordinary. Nepal's film wizard has replaced the former record-holder Kishan Srikanth of India, who directed a movie, Footpath, in 2006 at the age of nine.
  ...
  According to Saugat, he spent a total of 27 days in shooting the movie in different parts of Nepal. When asked about what motivated him to do the movie, he said he has always been interested in movies and acting. He added that his father was his inspiration.
  He said as a director, he has a say on how the film is going be made, how the members of the cast would act and how the theme of the movie is going to be presented to the audience.
  ...
  His directorial debut movie, based on an intimate relationship between a motherless child and her father failed to hit the box office but it gave him international recognition for his extraordinary talent.
4. "Saugat Bista is the youngest film director". República. 2015-02-21. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Eight-year-old Saughat Bista has set the Guinness record as the youngest film director in the world.
  The Guinness World Records has recognized him as the youngest film director for his work ´Love You Baba´ and the official certificate bestowed by the Guinness World Records for his unique and extraordinary talent on Saugat has already in his hand.
5. "Qatar hosts Nepal film awards". The Peninsula. 2015-09-27. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Love You Baba received Best Child Artist (Sangam Bista), and Appreciation for youngest director (Saugat Bista), while Mala took Best Makeup (Dipu Poudel) and Best Background Music (Manoj Kumar KC).
6. "Eight-year-old director's film to release in December". República. 2014-09-28. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  ‘Love You Baba’ centers on the story of a father’s struggles to raise his 10-year-old daughter alone without the support of a partner. Apart from Gajit Bista, the film stars Nishma Ghimire, Basanta Bhatta, Nirmal Sharma, Anmol Agrawal, Ashishma Nakarmi as well as the young director himself. It was also revealed during the press meet that work to register Saugat as the ‘Youngest Film Director’ in the Guinness World Records is also in progress. Deepak Sharma Bajgain, Chairman of World Record Holders’ Council of Nepal, informed that they are preparing to send in proof as required by the Guinness World Records.
7. Parashar, Utpal (2014-09-30). "Nepali boy seeks to be youngest film director". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  A student of Class II at Suryodaya School, Saugat’s film ‘Love You Baba’ is due to be released at movie theatres across Nepal this December.
  Once that happens and his claim is accepted by Guinness, he will replace current record holder India’s Kishan Srikanth who directed ‘Footpath’ (2006) when he was just nine years old.
  While Srikanth’s film told the story of an orphaned boy who wants to go to school, Saugat’s venture deals with the struggles of father as he attempts to raise his 10-year-old daughter alone.
8. Joshi, Suman (2014-12-19). "'Love You Baba' movie review". Nepali Film Reviews. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
9. "Love You Baba – Movie Review". 977MAG. 2015-08-30. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Rating: 3.5/5 (Three And Half Stars)
  What’s Good: Direction, performance, story and screenplay, emotional aspects.
  What’s Bad: Songs (not bad but could have been better), climax which could have been much better.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Love You Baba to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the coverage on the film or the director? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage about both. Xinhuanet, República's second article, Nepali Film Reviews, and 977MAG all provide significant coverage about the film. The director's article, Saugat Bista, was speedy deleted in August 2015. Most of the coverage is focused on the director, so I would not be opposed to refocusing and renaming the article to be about him. However, there could be WP:BLP1E concerns, which is why it might be better just to have an article about the film. Cunard (talk) 22:55, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cohen (judoka)[edit]

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

Subject has not one source that descriptively verifies notability. All sources just briefly mention him or are about his more relevant father. Clearly fails coverage to constitute staying.ALongStay (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 06:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 06:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I got to ask ALongStay, "What is it that you dislike so much about CrazyAces489?" I believe this is your fourth AfD against them and I'm curious to know if you are going to continue with your quest in only selecting articles created by CrazyAces489 to AfD? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have glanced at your editing history MurderByDeadcopy and I see why you have asked such a pointless question. I came here solely to eliminate articles that do not deserve to be here, because they are non-notable and an insult to Wikipedians who strive for something meaningful. CrazyAces was brought to my attention in conversations with Garagepunk66, and I knew I found a trouble-user. To answer your question I ask this: Why bother waiting to slowly delete his non-notable articles over a drawn-out process when I can just wipe it clean in a few weeks? It is nothing personal, when I'm through with him I will move on to another editor. But please, if you want to create some "vendetta" I apparently have please spread it across AfDs you have little word in.ALongStay (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how to vote on this. I would think that multiple podium finishes at the U.S. championships would be enough, but at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Haley it was determined that two second place finishes weren't enough because there was a lack of significant coverage. This article has the same problem.Mdtemp (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I declared Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Haley based on the two second place finishes which is enough to pass WP:MANOTE and believe that only the biggest deletionist would have closed that one as non-consensus which is exactly what happened. I rather despise vendetta AfD's which is what appears to be happening here. That's why I asked for the clarification above. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MANOTE.--MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - MurderByDeadcopy's vote is based on an essay on notability, not an actual policy. It has many times been said to be flawed, including in the AfD Mdtemp listed above. Users should ignore this vote.ALongStay (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ALongStay, I consider you the perfect editor for Wikipedia with your relentless pro-deletionist proclivity, but then my underlining reasoning on this is perhaps a tad nefarious! Unfortunately, I'm much to honest and decent of a person to actively engage in advancing the demise of this site. Cheers! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider striking this comment. Not only does this not WP:AGF but this type of backhanded comment is basically a personal attack or bullying as you would put it. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been following and bullying me (along with several other editors) for a while now. I get that you receive some sort of perversive enjoyment out of it, however, it isn't my thing so the fact that I interact with you, is all on you, because frankly I do not enjoy the pettiness of the situation. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While impressive I don't believe that he is notable enough to meet WP:GNG. The claims made in the article are vague, being an all american wrestler does not meet our guidelines nor does winning a sub-national event. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I hate to vote this way because I think a 4 time national medalist should be notable, but I looked at the notability criteria for other sports (like track & field) and it wouldn't be enough for those. The problem is that he never won a title or competed at the world championships and I didn't find the coverage to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because judo was not and still not a very popular event in the US, it is somewhat unfair to discount US judo wrestlers for their non-notability for lack of coverage and sources. But then again Richard Cohen did not make it to the Olympics like his father nor did he become an alternate like his brother... so as a "judoka", I agree, he is not notable. What he does get coverage in the media is for his business. In addition to running a judo club, weight training, and bunch of other athletics, Cohen dabbles in real-estate. His entrepreneurship is covered often in local newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the News-Sun. Maybe a "delete now and resurrect later" approach is suitable. --KogoroKano (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Just simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Part of me wants to say WP:IAR and "keep", since someone who medals at the national level four times should qualify as notable, but that's simply not in the guidelines. MANOTE simply suggests that the multiple medals at the nationals supports notability, but not that it is, by itself, enough to satisfy notability criteria. The lack of civility and AGF of certain editors is also disturbing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 26 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) 01:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Łoziński[edit]

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

Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. Most of the references are primary and he receives only passing mentions in the others. Jakejr (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Usually, if the subject is covered in some form of encyclopedia, it is enough. And this one has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Solidarity (movement): [11], which I feel is a reliable source (co-published by the Polish government, [12]). This, I feel, is sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per encyclopedia article noted by Piotrus. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: are we going to include 5000 people because they have an article in the encyclopedia mentioned above? Not sure if you want to set that kind of precedent. I bet there exist a few Bollywood encyclopedias as well... Prevalence (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the GNG --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:36, 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 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not up on Polish culture so I can't fully judge this, but looking at the sources listed in support of him as author, one (#7) is an interview (cannot be used for notability) and the other (#8) is by him, ditto. So from this I would say that he fails author notability. LaMona (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seemsthere is enough historical significance. I usually follow Piotrus's advice for Polish topics. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Ship Tycoon[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources covering this game. Sam Walton (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the hits in a WP:VG/RS Google CSE search come up with database entries, but I found these: [13] from GameSpot and [14] from GamersHell.com. There's also [15] from Game-Over.com, which Metacritic indexed, but I'm not quite sure I consider it a reliable source. I'm curious what other people think of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't found the GameSpot review, which is good. No opinion on the Game-Over review, but while we have GamersHell listed at VG/RS, I can't see that any of the 3 discussions there actually concluded that it was reliable. Given that along with the 'review' being pretty poorly written, I discounted it as reliable source coverage. Going to start a separate discussion about GH as an RS though. Sam Walton (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact there was a discussion recently where it seemed GH was deemed unreliable. Sam Walton (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? I missed that. I thought they were OK-ish. You've got a point, though. I didn't read the review very closely, and it does seem a big bloggish. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) As for whether these reviews are enough—if you have any doubts, no, it's not. Game-Over has no hallmarks of editorial credibility. And I agree with the VGRS conversation that questioned GamersHell's reliability in the first place. Which leaves a GameSpot review. There is little else in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Czar: As requested. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as simply none of this seems like enough for a considerably better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ~~Keep~~ as barely not passing WP:GNG with multiple secondary in-depth reliable sources, such as WP:VG/RS. For VG/RS: GameSpot review, ~~Absolute Games review~~. There's also Game World Navigator review (I would call it reliable, though being Russian it didn't get feedback during RS discussion). There's also Gry overview and description, which aren't great. While 2 sources is technically "multiple", there's not much in terms of WP:WAF to write about. Perhaps add info from sources to Cat Daddy Games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:31, 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 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical of Absolute Games' reliability, which we've never discussed outright, so I opened a thread at WT:VG/RS#Absolute_Games. And the Gry sources—it's still unclear to me who can write that content and how much of it is recycled PR. In any event, I wouldn't use it as a marker of notability. This leaves GameSpot and Game World Navigator (and the latter is likely fine, as a print mag), and I don't see us writing an article of any substance with those two alone. In other news, isn't it curious that this American-made game has more coverage in non-English sources? Why is that? czar 17:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Russians are into RPGs, point-and-clicks, strategies and management games. Or more like they are less into Westerny genres like sports, driving, platformers, or action-adventures. Basically to do with tiny early console market and prominent PC market and pirating. So most grew up with more complex PC games.</anecdotal evidence> — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 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) 01:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McLellan Marketing Group[edit]

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

Simply fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are sources, but nothing that is in-depth that would count towards WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for better notability, nothing here suggests solidly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:11, 23 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) 00:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Spencer[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Musa^Talk ☻ 07:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she doesn't have enough credits currently to be seen as notable - one in a short film and the other appears to be a small part. Two of the references don't mention this actress. A new article can be created when she has more of a portfolio. PK T(alk) 15:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every actor or actress in existence does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because they exist — but there's neither enough substance, nor enough reliable sourcing, here to give her a WP:NACTOR pass for anything. While I can't prove anything, I'm getting a distinct whiff of conflict of interest to boot — there's entirely too much completely unsourced and unsourceable detail about her personal life for this to be anything other than at least a partial WP:AUTOBIO. A person's mother's maiden name, for instance, is not an easy detail to find out if the media haven't reported it already, unless you have a direct relationship of some kind with that person. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 25 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 - No valid reason for deletion - "This article is very short" isn't a valid reason, And WP:BEFORE wasn't followed either - Google brings up a few sources anyway. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Binney & Burnham[edit]

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

This article is very short (as in 2 sentences short) and has too little information to be kept as a page. It has one source, which does not even contain some of the information noted in the article. Will211 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being short is not a significant problem; it's just a stub. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article being "very short" is not a proper AfD rationale. If there's a surmountable problem of a notable topic, fix it. It took only seconds to find coverage.[16][17][18][19][20] --Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Picks Volume 17[edit]

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

Album has not even come out yet, but WP:CRYSTALBALL issues aside, there has not been any opportunity for anyone to review it or to assess it for possible notability. Once the album comes out and the press has a chance to consider it, then MAYBE It can warrant a standalone article. Until then, its presence here seems premature. KDS4444^Talk 06:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the album won't be released for another two weeks, it meets the General Notability Guideline -- that is, it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". When this AFD was submitted the article didn't have any references, but I've added some now. — Mudwater^(Talk) 11:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and so Withdrawn by nominator. KDS4444^Talk 12:06, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romin Zuberi[edit]

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

After removed prod. No significant claims of notability, nor any independent references that show notability. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing to suggest better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of Notability. Appears to be an autobiography / social media profile written by the subject of the article - it was copied from rominzuberi.blogspot.in which asserts "Posted by Romin Zuberi". The article only cites self-published social media sites. I did a substantial search and I couldn't find anything resembling a reliable source. Alsee (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clearly non notable singer and clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:39, 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 purpose of the DRV is not to restore the article, but re-open the discussion in order to clarify whether the topic is non-notable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's general agreement that not only is this in fact, er, unscientific crap, but more importantly that it's probably non-notable unscientific crap. However, most contributors express a preference that this be described somewhere, briefly, just so that we can cover the fact that this is something some people believe in. This can be editorially resolved with editing and a redirect or disambiguation to wherever the topic ends up at; and if needed for mergers the history can also be restored. Sandstein 20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake sensitive[edit]

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

Unscientific crap. NE Ent 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wrote this article a few years ago, and I have no qualms with its deletion. Per WP:NFRINGE, "a fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" - having written the article myself, I can testify that this article does not meet this criterion. ceranthor 03:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article creator. Speedy deletion G7 cannot apply in this situation because too many other editors have edited this article. sst ✈ 05:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have heard of this and it seems to be a topic that people might want to know about. Better to have a neutral, objective article here than not.Borock (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, probably better, is suggested below. Borock (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Delete (i.e.: revise) per NE Ent ("[U]nscientific crap"), ceranthor (fringe), and the other issues I tagged (discussion at Talk:Earthquake_sensitive#Multiple issues (tagged)).

Although I would keep (per Borock) – call it "mostly delete" – provided that, in line with WP:DUE, it's only a short stub that clearly and definitely explains that it is pseudoscience, with no scientific credibility, and entirely unproven. Anyone willing to accept this as an alternative to full deletion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article on something that's not notable saying it's not notable? Deleting would be better / simpler. NE Ent 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a full article, just a stub. Mere absence suggests something overlooked, an omission, which leaves the readers uninformed, and invites remedy by editors only vaguely informed on the topic. A stub saying what the term signifies, where it comes from, and that it is pseudoscience, not to be taken seriously, informs the reader. And informs any well-meaning but under-informed editors. It allows for very, very, very small, but non-zero, notability. I was going to make it so in a week or two, but got pre-empted by this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – We need to steer clear of anything related to Jim Berkland. Dawnseeker2000 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is a fraud, but if he is a notable fraud, we need to cover it. Tigraan (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Precognition, or maybe to Clairvoyance, possibly adding a short mention there (current sourcing warrants it). The only question, really, is notability, and I could not find any significant RS on the internet, but that's possibly because search results are swamped with "earthquake sensitive" websites. Tigraan (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Idea!!!Borock (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precognition is the one. I have added half a sentence there with the one good secondary source from this article. Borock (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Works for me.~~ NE Ent 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no aware that anyone claims any paranormal basis for this, so any connection with precognition would be to re-interpret it.

There are reliable sources regarding the more inclusive topic of possible animal sensitivity to earthquakes, and it's a bust. (See Earthquake prediction#Animal behavior, which is possibly all the coverage WP needs to give that topic.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none has ever claimed paranormal powers by stating they are paranormal. But "earthquake sensitives" do not give any explanation for their "gift", or give an explanation that science does not validate, so that is pretty much the definition of "paranormal". As physical symptoms are claimed, it is not ESP in the strict sense, but one is left to wonder how the symptoms occurred.

This being said, as animal sensitivity is indeed a thing there might be a case for a DAB page, one link for precognition and one for Earthquake prediction#Animal behavior. I am under the impression that the term "earthquake sensitive" refers almost exclusively to the ability to predict eartquakes well in advance, though, and not just feeling the fastest-going waves. Tigraan (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake prediction might be the better place to redirect. It's really more the topic of the article, rather than a general supernatural ability to predict the future. Borock (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple redirect to EP fails to inform readers that this is a disproved pseudo-scientific claim, and fails to inform editors that the lack of an article is for reasons of notability, not neglect. I think there really needs to be definite statement in this regard, and am considering revising my "delete".

Tigraan, the article does speculate on possible objective causes (piezoelectric effect and radon), bringing it within scientific purview. You are right about prediction being "well in advance", prediction being useful only if there is enough warning to do something. The "predictions" claimed here are more like postdictions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is whether "sensitives" claim to know the thing in advance (say, dream of it the night before) or a little after it started. I was under the impression that it was the former for most or the most famous of them, see for instance Jim_Berkland#Methodology. If not, my proposed redirection is indeed incorrect.

The claimed "possible objective causes" are more science-y than ghosts, but I do not see how that in itself would make improper to redirect to precognition (since they are still unscientific in essence). Houdini presented his famous levitation trick in a lab coat while claiming to have discovered a new property of ether, but it was still a magic act (= an entertaining act displaying seemingly impossible phenomena by secret means), not "fringe science". Tigraan (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even better is the distinction between magicians and "psychics": same tricks, but magicians own up that it's just illusion, while psychics claim they have special powers. With Houdini I think any thing he said about the ether was just part of the patter, and there was no serious claim of being scientific. Berkland is a different case. As far as I know his claim is not for psychic abilities, but for an objective - i.e., scientifically amenable - basis for actually predicting earthquakes. That others (e.g., Clarisa Bernhardt) claim a psychic basis for predicting earthquakes muddles the issue here. But I believe there is an argument (at least implicitly) that a sensitivity to earthquake precursors provides a scientific explanation for what has been attributed as "psychic". (Which is still bunk, but less obviously so.) So while the essential matter here is a claim to foretell the future, it is not properly precognition (in the common sense of that term) in that psychic ability is not being alleged. The allegation is of an objective basis, amenable to scientific study. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you suggest that precognition lies in the domain of "I have magic powers", while ES is claimed to work through some physical phenomena, hence the two should not be mixed.

First of all, precognition has been "scientifically" claimed, but more fundamentally I do not see how you set the line between the science-y and the non-science-y claims. Is any explanation based on (say) piezoelectricity automatically "within the scientific purview"? Even when the claim is that leprechauns are telepathically sending instructions in Morse code into my quartz watch (but only when witnesses are not looking)? I can point to any number of modern witch-doctors that claim they heal via "magnetism" and "wavelength projection", does that make their claims "fringe science" rather than "magic"?

Houdini is an illusionist, not a fringe scientist, because he uses secret techniques for entertainment, and he would be one even if he had stood by his bogus explanation after the show (as long as he only displays his talents in an "entertainment" context). Homeopaths are fringe scientists, because they are organised like scientists (journal articles, lab testing, etc.), even though their claims have as little supporting evidence and plausibility as the existence of ghosts. Eartquake sensitives claims prediction abilities, like psychics, via methods unvalidated yet, like psychics, and entrap their followers in a "victim of a conspiracy" mindset, like psychics. They do not publish studies in the Journal of Earthquake Sensitivity, do not hold conferences to discuss their findings.

Looks like a duck to me (even though Berkland was a geologist). Tigraan (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to revise: As I have stated above, I think there really needs to be some kind of treatment here, as the term has some currency (amounting to quasi-notability). Therfore I propose that the deletion process be put on hold while I do a major revision, and then in a week or so we can review the revision to see if it can survive deletion. Is there consenus for me to proceed with this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as a corrolary of "AfD is not cleanup". Now that the topic is at AfD, we should decide what to do with it (article, redirect, delete, etc.) even though the decision need not be enforced immediately. Tigraan (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your "etc." properly includes revision. Note the language at WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, particularly: if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article." We are a little tangled up here because the AfD got in before any discussion of revision. Proceeding straight to execution (ah, of course I mean decision) rather precludes salvaging anything. And not considering possible revision is a suboptimal outcome. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Revise later" is the same as "keep" in view of WP:TIND. AfD is not cleanup. (see below, too) Tigraan (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna revise it, revise it. Even if the consensus here is to delete, there's nothing to preclude an editor from creating a well-sourced article on the subject. NE Ent 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reluctance in proceeding is, in part, that I would be blanking most of the article, which might be deemed as approaching the blanking prohibited at WP:EDITATAFD. Also, I am disinclined to put much work into this if deletion is considered inevitable. I could put up some proposed text, but I am not going to spend any time doing the citation details unless I have some reassurance it won't be time and effort wasted. As yet I am not encouraged to proceed. Could we have a conclusion that the apparent consensus for deletion applies to the article's current form, but that it will be reassessed upon substantial revision? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am disinclined to put much work into this if deletion is considered inevitable. Precisely why, although revision is indeed possible, the pragmatic option IMO is to wait a keep or no consensus before putting in the heavy work. There is no "article under its current form" clause in the process of deletion (except WP:TNT, but that is an essay and it does not apply anyways) - either it deserves an article or it doesn't, regardless of its present state. And the decision process (even if it ends up in "no consensus") should not be postponed at a later date even if someone is working on the article (as a corollary of WP:NEGLECT).

The reasons for my redirect (≈delete) !vote are the lack of RS citing ES as a notable topic, and FWIW, I think the current article is fine in its writing except maybe for some WP:UNDUE concerns in the last section (which could give the reader "evidence" that predictions work). If you have sources for notability, please bring them forward, but otherwise, the same causes would have the same effects. Tigraan (talk) 23:56, 25 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 as a blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate and Mim-Mim (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I have found that the award-winning animated television series for three-year-olds first aired in 2014 called Kate and Mim-Mim is sourcable and probably notable enough for its own article,[21][22][23] I have found nothing to confirm a movie based upon that series is in work or slated for release in April of 2016. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be a fairly blatant hoax, especially as the infobox claims that the film is based on the game Ratchet & Clank - a claim that as far as I can tell, is blatantly untrue. As for the TV series, it looks like Kate and Mim-Mim aired on CBeebies and Disney Junior. Even if Disney doesn't own the production rights to the series, they're pretty gung ho about covering things that are related to their company (especially as their page for the TV series is still live) and I see no indication from them that there's going to be a film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the article creator's edit history shows similar edits to various articles that appears to be hoaxes. I'm going to speedy this and block the editor per WP:NOTHERE. Their edits do give off the strong impression that this isn't their first account, so I may have to do some digging to see if/what their prior account might have been. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 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 is found to be editorial synthesis, and therefore not suitable for inclusion on this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reform in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

Article is totally a WP:SYNTH duplicate mess of the several articles comprising the History of the Ottoman Empire template, such as Stagnation and reform of the Ottoman Empire and the rest. 92slim (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into existing articles. BMK (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This page was proposed for deletion; the reason being duplication. (Stagnation and reform of the Ottoman Empire). Well the rationale is groundless. As you can see in the history of the "Stagnation and reform of the Ottoman Empire", originally the article was about the stagnation period only. It mostly covered wars. But in 2015 an editor moved the title to "stagnation and reform", a most unsuitable title. (Stagnation period is the 17th century and most of the reforms were after stagnation period) The reforms in the Ottoman Empire however covers only the reforms (and the reform attemts) in the whole Ottoman history up to 1922. So these two articles don't overlap. Besides you can't merge general history in the 17th century to reforms in the say 19th century. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to delete the article and merge the contents. Don't see how your argument that the creation of a second duplicate article was unsuitable has any validity here, since the contents are basically the same and the dates coincide with the main template structure. - -92slim (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really interested in the Ottoman empire periods please see User talk:Nedim Ardoğa/Archive 10 #Ottoman History in Series of articles You'll see that the editor who proposed to delete the article is the very same editor who changed the milestones in the sidebox. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in context, the article ends in 1828 and is followed by Decline and modernization of the Ottoman Empire, which details the slow decline and modernization of the Empire. Therefore the two reform articles DO overlap. The one which is being preserved (Stagnation and reform of the Ottoman Empire) goes from 1683-1827 and is followed by other series of articles, this one (Reform in the Ottoman Empire) is from 1699-1920 so it's an obvious copy, created by the above user in 2011, unlike the one which is being kept which was created much before in 2005 - so not only it contains WP:SYNTH, it currently is also User:NedimArdoga's WP:POVFORK and the latter doesn't even realize it. As for the sidebox changes, the editor who changed it, User:SelimAnkara1993 made a total mess by mixing titles and content all together in a WP:SYNTH mess, and I just reverted it back to a sane state; no content was deleted, just left this article out since it is a WP:SYNTH copy. The article violates WP:SYNTH and needs to be deleted, or merged to the other one. The fact that I reverted that mess doesn't change this fact, neither your knowledge about history matters here at all; rules do. --92slim (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks: 1.) Stagnation of the Ottoman Empire was a part of chain articles (Others were Rise (1299-1453), Growth (1453 -1579 or 1606) , Decline (1699-1839) and Tanzimat (1839-1922)) Beginning by the 17th century there were reforms. Thus one can’t assign reforms to one period only. (In fact majority of the reforms were in the last period.) 2.) Article Reforms in the Ottoman Empire was created in 2011 and the article Stagnation of the Ottoman Empire was changed and renamed in 2014. (see histories of both articles.) Thus Stagnation article should be reverted to its original form and Reforms of the Ottoman Empire should be kept as it is Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

So what? Stagnation of the Ottoman Empire was still created in 2005, earlier than your article. The point is that one of them has to be deleted, yours is chosen just because it's newer therefore it's a WP:POVFORK, even if unintended. Therefore the content can be merged, unless you have a better proposal. --92slim (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. The original articles had almost nothing to do with the reforms. The reforms were added much later than the Reforms in the Ottoman Empire article. If you've time please check it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pal, the main reason I nominated the article is because both articles have the same content. If you want, you can modify it so they're clearly distinguishable, but currently both have very similar contents, one spans to a century before, one after, but nonetheless they both overlap in contents. If you think that the articles should be organized in a different manner, I suggest deleting this article or the other one, and creating a new series of articles which in your opinion could accurately reflect how the history of the Empire unfolded. If you thought my point was to delete the contents altogether, you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm just saying that if the contents are almost a copy-paste, that already is construed as a fork of the other article. I'm by no means an expert in the history of the Ottoman Empire, but when I see a mess like this, it's necessary to take some action, and make it clearer for everyone to understand. --92slim (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stagnation and reform of the Ottoman Empire refers to the events between "1683 to 1827", while Reform in the Ottoman Empire refers to different reform movements from 1718 to 1920. It has a meaningful approach to separate these events. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase "reform in the Ottoman Empire" is usually used to refer to the Tanzimat period. I'm not seeing sources in the AfD article that use this "reform in the Ottoman Empire" terminology - the content of the article just seems to be an OR / Synthesis of potted events spanning 200 years of the history of the Ottoman Empire. Gradual changes within a society over time is not reform. Innovation in itself is not reform. For example, what have the establishment of ceramic and textile factories to do with reform - unless there are sources that say their foundation was part of a reform program for the empire's industrial base? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also got doubts about the sources (arising from experience rather than knowledge about those specifically cited). What is the publication origin of the multi-volume "Türkiye tarihi" for example? Are there neutral reviews of it? Multi volume works published in Turkey in the 1990s tend to be propaganda works, and if this title is a state production intended for school or college use it is probably a work of propaganda. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning by the 17th century some statesmen in the Ottoman Empire saw the need of reforms. But they were usually unsuccessful. (see the text) But as the gap between the West and the Ottoman Empire widened the reforms became inevitable. Beginning by the Islahat (1856) the reform programs were supervised by the Great Powers of Europe. But this does not mean that the reforms began by the 19th century. This article tries to summarize the reform attempts . (In fact earlier title was “Reform attempts of the Ottoman Empire”) One may object some events such as ceramic factories being considered reform. OK but that’s no reason for deletion. After all everybody can edit and improve the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is confusing change with reform, and that the article is synthesis. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if not, Delete. It appears that this article far too vague in that it incorporates everything that it can when it comes to any Ottoman reform policy. Imagine having Reform in the Roman Empire article? Imagine the chaos that would entail. So it is for this reason why there is so much material in this article that can be found in other more relevant but specific articles. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:39, 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 01:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge -- While I accept that the article is at present not a good one, I get the feeling that it is still under construction. It is within WP legitimate to have an article covering a topic, here History of the Ottoman Empire and a series of sub-articles, linked by a "main" template giving more detail. To cover the history of a country that lasted over 650 years in a single article has to mean that the detail will be limited. However we have that: Stagnation and reform of the Ottoman Empire and two subsequent articles. Some of these in turn have more detailed sub-articles. I think those articles would be better titled as History of the Ottoman Empire, 1683-1827 etc. A flowery title for the period, will be appropriate as a heading in the general article, but the main article needs a precise title, which cannot attract irrelevant accretions. Accordingly, we do not need a second series of sub-articles, which must accordingly be merged to the existing series, if they add anything useful; or if not, plain deleted (or redirected). It is possible that it might be legitimate to have an article on "Reform movements in the Ottoman Empire", dealing with those periods when reforms were being introduced, but that is not what this article is at present trying to do. Efforts would be better directed to filling out detail and providing better references for the main series of articles. I would comment on the "stagnation" article, that it needs work, if only by linking the names of sultans in the article to their bio-articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after thought, I think the very wide range of content within the article does not fit the article title, and probably never will. I also feel the topic title itself may be OR, cramming a number of actually disconnected events artificially into a single topic. Any original sourced content could be merged into History of the Ottoman Empire (or subarticles if more appropriate). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion is closed . But I'd like to clarify. 6 century-Ottoman History is a very wide subject. see Index of articles related to the Ottoman Empire which is still incomplete. Most Ottoman-History historians will agree that the reform attempts was a 4 century struggle (tradition vs modernization) and it deserves to be treated separately. The article "stagnation" has nothing to do with the reforms. As I've pointed out earlier, stagnation was a period in the 17th century between the treaties of Zssitvatorak and the Karlowitz. Besides it is a link in a series of 5 articles. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a good reason why there are no other articles called "Reform in country X" attempting to cover all reforms in a country's history. The article is WP:SYNTH because it cherry-picks events from books on general history of the Ottoman empire based on unclear and unsourced criteria. There are books out there with "Ottoman reforms" in the title devoted to the Tanzimat period, but I see no evidence of all reforms in the Ottoman Empire being treated as a single topic in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move content to named existing articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:46, 25 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Stewart[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and winning the Golden Gloves is not enough to meet WP:NBOX. Being Mike Tyson's sparring partner doesn't give him notability because of WP:NOTINHERITED. Mdtemp (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the Golden Gloves title he won was the National GG and not a State GG then I would consider that automatically notable per WP:NBOX.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden gloves, either national or state, is not considered notable. The main reasoning is that it is not the National Championship for amateur boxing.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The National Golden Gloves is a long standing and very respected national competition running for almost 100 years. I would consider is as prestigious as the USACs. Do you know if his title was the National, Territorial or State title?--Donniediamond (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter since none of them would be sufficient to meet WP:NBOX. The real question is whether or not he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but it most certainly does. It makes a massive difference if he won the US National Golden Gloves competition or if he won the Montgomery County Golden Gloves.--Donniediamond (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stewart wasn't just Tyson's "sparring partner", but rather a major influence early on. He gets over six paragraphs in this New York magazine Tyson interview. That plus the Golden Gloves is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree Stewart was more than Tyson's sparring partner. I'm not sure there's quite enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, but it's close enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 25 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) ansh 666 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Rapp[edit]

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

Delete -- article about non-notable individual, clearly written as a bio by subject or proxy. Quis separabit? 17:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and references. Meatsgains (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he is indeed the founder of the company Wet Planet Beverages, as the article states without a reference, it is probably worth merging and redirecting there instead of deleting. Deli nk (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wet Planet Beverages per Deli nk. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps as we can consider this for now instead of deleting until it's necessary, but it seems certain there's nothing for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My initial reaction was redirect, but after searching I found this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. I think it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy is notable. The article just needs work, especially with regards to its sources, many of which were just thrown on at the end of the reflist, which leads to a "mucking fess" IMHO. (Can I say 'mucking'?). I found another one for the article subject, added it as an inline reference and tried to work on the stack of loose cites at the bottom. Not much headway there, but be that as it may, the article meets WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:21, 22 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) 00:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I AM Training[edit]

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

Original Research and No Reliable Sources. //nepaxt 01:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY. --Murph9000 (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a single link to be found that even mentions this philosophy. Subject appears to be fake and something randomly made up by the author of this article. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 23:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turið Elinborgardóttir[edit]

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

Winner of a preliminary round for a pageant, but did not win the Miss Earth title. No evidence she meets WP:NMODEL or that she had a significant role in a notable stage of TV production (just one of over 80 participents. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails NMODEL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because she is the first Faroese women who has competed in a mayor beauty pageant. She got much publicity in the Faroese media in connection with Miss Earth Title, both before and after winning the Danish title. EileenSanda (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed coverage is quite local then for the Faroes have a population of about 50,000 people. Can you point to anything beyond WP:ROUTINE? Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per being the first from her country to represent the country at an international beauty pageang. Historic. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 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 01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per reasons stated by EileenSanda and BabbaQ above. --Danmuz (talk) 14:02, 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino punk riot[edit]

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

From the way this article presents itself, and from what I've heard about this incident (which is zilch if you exclude this article), there doesn't appear to be any notability or lasting significance to said incident. Parsley Man (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event occurred [24], although I cannot find enough attention paid to it to justify having an article. There was an AP story that ran in USA Today: [25]. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also covered by LA Times, mentioned in NY Times Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thisisnotatest, have you found any discussion of it published in the years since 2006?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, no, but my understanding of Wikipedia policy is that notability is permanent. Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thisisnotatest it is certainly true that the notability of an event is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. However, the notability has to be established, which, with something like a riot, requires "significant coverage" (see: WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:SIGCOV) as laid out at WP:NEWSEVENT. At AFD, it is usually necessary to demonstrate WP:INDEPTH, and/or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. WP:NCRIME is also a useful guideline. It seems likely to me that this riot, involving, as it did 200 riot police, stabbings, clashes between 2 types of skinheads, arrests, and the shutting down of a large music festival is likely to have generated coverage beyond the daily news cycle to which it is sourced. I looked, but I am not especially familiar with the punk scene and perhaps I did not use effective keywords. If you or someone can locate in-depth or coverage in later years, feel free to flag me to take another look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reversing my opinon as a result of a news archive search I just ran on Proquest. keywords: "San Bernardino" + 2k6 turned up extensive coverage of the riot and its impact (cost; property damage; policy regarding security at concerts; fate of venue) in several California papers in the months and in the years after this riot occurred. My first, quick searches were too shallow. The event was notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 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 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable event. plenty of sources. BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 22 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Zima[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 05:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely certain but at best Delete for now as my searches found nothing convincing and yet her IMDb shows two shows where she seemed to be a lead and or recurring character along with also a "Pula Film Festival" Award. This will be Croatian familiar attention until I can further comment, SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this is a well-known Croatian actress. A quick search in Croatian gives me mainstream press coverage of her being the recipient of the best TV actress award at the national contest of 2010, sponsored by the Ministry of Culture (Croatia), held at the Croatian National Theatre in Zagreb, ... I doubt there's a more simple and straightforward indicator of national notability than that for Croatian actors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's even more - Croatian Radiotelevision coverage of the local Vukovar film festival says that the 'celebrated Croatian actress' was awarded the award for lifetime achievement. If that's not above and beyond WP:GNG, nothing is. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly notable in Croatia per sources found by Joy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from films, had 2nd billing in all 72 episodes of popular Croatian tv show Odmori se,zasluzio si and recurring role in 103 episodes of Luda Kuca (both shows have articles on the Serbo-Croation wikipedia), therefore I believe subject passes WP:NACTORAtlantic306 (talk) 17:05, 24 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) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Al-Saleh[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:NOTE, article may be subject to WP:COI, may violate WP:NOTADVERTISING, and lack reliable sources WP:RS. Quick Google search returns no reliable sources to support and existing references are not prominent or are dead links. Multiple issue notice has been present since May 2014 with little material improvement for sources. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The advertising tag has been removed, as have some of the references (such as they were). Time to get rid of this "article", which is no better than a CV. Deb (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty blatant self-promotion. Great CV, though. Quis separabit? 13:27, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bony Bullrich[edit]

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

Extremely promotional to the point this is essentially a press release, and most of the references are of no value Jac16888 ^Talk 19:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources don't support his notability or significance, or even the content written here and this article is pretty grand/promotional. Infancy? 11 images? Lengthy list of works? Its all too self-promotional. Burroughs'10 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article in undoubtedly distinctly over-promotional, and a large proportion of the citations, even discounting several malformed ones, are either not from reliable sources or do not mention the subject. However, some of the citations are from apparently reliable sources (such as La Nacion) and do refer to the subject - and the malformed ones seem to have suffered in translation from Spanish Wikipedia and, looking there, a few more of these also look satisfactory. My Spanish is not good enough to be certain, but the subject does seem likely to me to have enough notability in Argentina to justify a shorter (and less promotional) article than the current one. PWilkinson (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep per PWilkinson's statement. This article needs a lot of cleanup, but this can most likely be fixed with reliable, better-formatted and more accurate referencing and citations. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 04:57, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE as equivalent to an expired WP:PROD nomination, due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir...I Love You[edit]

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

The film can very well be notable, but the article does not cite a single reliable source Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Sir...I Love You" "Sir...I Love You Movie" "G.N.Rangarajan" "Sivakumar" "Lakshmi" "Jasgan Moghini Films"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rawson[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support/references. Subject appears to have won a minor award, but the majority of films he has been involved in are shorts or minor in nature. Subject appears to lack notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better solid notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not quite seeing enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:49, 26 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 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for International Governance Innovation[edit]

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

A promotional article on a minor think-tank based on churnalism and other non-independent sources. All significant edits appear to be by employees, according to WP:COIN reports. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does appear to be mostly a promotional piece. Could we perhaps just tone it down a bit instead? Policydan (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting only for now as I'm not sure what to say but I found several links with "Centre for International Governance Innovation CIGI Waterloo Ontario" at Books, News and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Jim Balsillie. Curro2 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I won't say CIGI has an especially high profile internationally but it is far from being a bit-player or merely a vanity project for Jim Balsillie. CIGI has a reasonably high profile within Canadian media and its staff do comment regularly on current events: e.g., [26], [27], so I would argue it easily meets the criteria for notability. On the text, I'll certainly concede the article reads now like a press release, but that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. --Saforrest (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - CIGI is notable, as the above user has stated (and as can be easily proven further), but the nominator is right, this article needs to be truncated. Would not be opposed to stubification. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 02:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob "Jacquelyn" Ryan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable for holding office at the school board level, which is not an office that satisfies WP:NPOL. Further notability is claimed as the first openly transgender officeholder in Massachusetts, but several problems disembowel that: firstly, there's Althea Garrison, who held a seat in the state legislature in the 1990s. Secondly, there's the problem that even the press releases on Ryan's own website only shift from Jacob to Jacquelyn/Jackie, and male to female pronouns, after she was already serving on the school board, so there's no basis on which to split notability hairs over the distinction between "first one to come out while in office" and "first one to win election while already out". And thirdly, "first member of a minority community to hold an otherwise non-notable office" is not necessarily a credible claim of encyclopedic notability in and of itself, per WP:POLOUTCOMES: if she were getting nationalized coverage for this distinction, then it would count for something — but if extralocal attention is so nonexistent that you have to park the article entirely on primary sources and local community weekly newspapers that aren't widely distributed enough to contribute WP:GNG, then the distinction doesn't get her over the bar. So this is a delete, I'm sorry to say. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Per WP:POLITICIAN, I can't even find much local press coverage. Best of luck to this youngster, and if election to a state-level office happens down the road, an article can be re-added. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find Bearcat's argument entirely persuasive; there's nothing inherently notable in Wikipedia guidelines about being the first member of a minority community to be a minor officeholder, absent a GNG pass. How far do we slice this, after all? First Pequot officeholder? First Romany officeholder? First Croatian officeholder? Beyond that, the SPA creating the article misrepresented the source (the claim coming from only one of the sources listed, and that being a small town weekly of the sort generally not held to be a reliable source), and I've corrected the claim to suit: that the subject is the first openly transgendered school committee member in the Commonwealth. Ravenswing 09:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elected to minor office in a small town, coverage that I can find is merely local. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 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.