Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Cmurphey80 (talk | contribs)
168 edits
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenText}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VHS to DVD}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VHS to DVD}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Cameron (artist)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Cameron (artist)}}

Revision as of 05:38, 26 September 2015

< 25 September 27 September >

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 Withdraw and keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenText

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

Company's page is full of spam and self promotion. It has been suggested several times in the talk page that it be deleted. Cmurphey80 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It really doesn't meet anything for notability right now. The company talk page say says it all. I am not a bad faith editor and have no interest in any new pages as of now. I've also nominated my own page for a speedy deletion. I think Kuru has an interest in keeping this page up for whatever reason. If the page is updated with decent references I'd be ok with keeping it. However, it looks terrible right now with a bunch of information of the companies acquisitions. What value does it show? How are they notable? I know nothing of them and had never heard of them before seeing them on wikipedia.--Cmurphey80 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is sufficient; you need not "vote" twice. Just add comments like this. Establishing notability is as simple as a few significant coverages in reliable sources. Are you unable to locate those on the page; have you looked yourself for any others? I'm afraid that your personal knowledge of the firm's existence is not a workable yardstick for notability. My interest in the page is clearly noted in the article's edit history - de-spamming after someone overlinked the article someplace else, and then bookmarking the page in case they came back. I likely have thousands of firms watchlisted like this. Kuru (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That article was not mine. You can't tell because I also put it up for deletion and you'll note DiCentral is already gone. I went to each of the sources for OpenText and they don't meet the WP:COMPANY guidelines. Lets go through the cites and sources: 1. Annual Report - made by the company for the company - FAIL 2. Meets the requirements 3. Passing Mention - FAIL 4. Broken Link - FAIL 5. no mention of opentext at all - FAIL 6. Broken Link - FAIL 7. Passes. So, you are are saying that a company with only TWO good sites would pass the notable guildlines? I'll also note that on the pages talk there have been several suggestions for deletion. So, It's not personal and I'm not on a delete spree. I did it this way so that I could follow the proper deletion route instead of speedy delete. --Cmurphey80 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VHS to DVD

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

Completely unsourced article, edging perilously close to the line dividing "encyclopedia article" from "advertisement", about a piece of software. This first came to my attention because an anonymous IP keeps trying to overwrite it with a how-to guide about all possible methods of VHS-to-DVD conversion, but while that's also inappropriate content it's not the core of the problem — the core of the problem is the lack of sourcing to demonstrate that this particular software package is notable at all. Not every piece of software that exists gets an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia if proper sourcing isn't there to support it. Delete, preferably with salt so that the how-to guide doesn't come back again either. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per consensus following article improvements.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Cameron (artist)

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

The existence of this person and their work has been verified. However, there is no indication as to how this Artist is notable. If this article is to be kept it needs some serious style and structure edits to comply with Wikipedia guidelines.  ' Olowe2011 Talk 04:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - That would depend on what you claim significant coverage means. Simply because the article has a lot of references does not satisfy the general common sense definition of significant coverage. Like I said, anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery and then find themselves in articles related to that expedition. That does not alone qualify an article to be notable. In order to be notable it needs to show notability within the article regardless of coverage. As it stands there are no claims in the article that would suggest this Artist is notable. Just to add I have never seen or heard of this artist or her work in my life. The judgement is based on a quick skim read of the article and nothing content wise suggests that she is anything notable above any other typical artist. Olowe2011 Talk 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response. — I do not think the meaning of "significant coverage" in the notability standard is as ambiguous as you make it out to be, Olowe2011; it means that the article (or book chapter or television segment or whatever) must be entirely or substantially about the subject of the Wikipedia article, and not merely make passing mention of them. There are three sources cited in the article that meet that standard:
• Bentley, Brett (13 June 2013). "To hell and back: The tale of an artist". The Union.
• Kellar, Tom (25 March 2012). "Artist, blogger and mom finds voice, opportunity to share it in Nevada County". The Union.
• "Website hopes to 'free Katie'". The Guardian. 14 June 2005.
I'm also concerned by your repeated statements (here and on my talk page) that "anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery" as a basis for questioning the notability of this article. You have offered no evidence of such a practice anywhere, much less in this case, and the fact that Ms. Cameron's gallery showings have mostly been curated and/or themed group shows tends to indicate such a pay-for-display scheme has not been involved here. Please remember to assume good faith about other users. And please also consider that whether you have heard of someone, or think they are intreresting, are not valid bases for deleting a Wikipedia article that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello again User:GrammarFascist. I find it fitting that I do indeed yield to the fact that you feel this article is verified by sources. As a matter of fact I completely agree with you that you have done the correct thing by including evidence to verify the existence of this artist and her work. However, what I do question is why this article is notable. In layman's term why is this artist defined from other artists and what makes her deserving of an article in this encyclopaedia. During this discussion you may have decided to take a tone which pushes policy but in this I will appeal to your better of common senses. Let us think for a moment of the reader. It would be prudent to suggest that as an outsider to this topic, subject area and article my views on how the article reads may hold truer and proper on the scale of impartiality than yourself therefore resulting in my views being less swayed towards one side or the other. By reading this article and how it is written, currently I get the distinct impression that you have certainly provided for the fact this artist exists and that she might have attention from the few sources you have given. But in the very same reading it is my consideration that not one single sentence indicates true and common sense based notability. The simple question is does any statement in this article suggest notability - the honest and truthful answer is as it stands - No. Of course this opinion is open to change based on such statements making their way into the article and I am in no way set on retaining this deletion request if such notability can be indicated for the benefit of our readers. In the kindest regard Olowe2011 Talk 19:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I still do not agree that what you are calling a "common sense based notability" standard is appropriate for evaluating Wikipedia articles. It is entirely subjective, and thus difficult for different people to reach agreement about. The fact that you have never heard of someone does not mean that they are therefore not notable; you probably have never heard of the most popular actors in Venezuela or the Philippines, or the world record-holders for highest scores in curling or cricket — I know I haven't — yet those people are notable for those very reasons. In this case, Sheila Cameron's work, in particular her creation of "Free Katie" and her being personally challenged by a notable art critic, has been notable enough to be covered by multiple independent sources. The fact that the articles were written is itself proof of notability, because if Sheila Cameron's work were not notable, it would not have been written about.
As a side note, while she has a Wikipedia account at SheilaCameronArtist, the artist herself has chosen to recuse herself from this discussion, just as she has refrained from editing the article about her directly. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GrammarFascist So basically she created an article for herself? Okay then. At no point have I said that the reason I do not deem this notable is due to the fact I have not heard of her. As very clearly stated its due to the fact there are no statements in the article that do in fact suggest notability. Olowe2011 Talk 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GrammarFascist I smell a rat here due to the fact this is clearly an autobiography which has been requested to be made by the person who is subject to it. The worrisome component to this is those who clearly knew this before creating the article on her behalf. I will stand to make one thing clear now and that is if anything funny is going on it should end now and it would be a good idea to request deletion yourself because I do not have any issues with bringing this up with administrators or escalating it further than them if needed. It is completely unacceptable that anyone would get a request to create an article by someone who is clearly subject to the article then dispute notability to such a degree when absolutely no statement of notability or even significance has been made. I am a no tolerance editor. This will be my final word on this discussion. Olowe2011 Talk 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - I agree with Olowe2011 on this, and join him in being a bit twitchy as you did work very closely with SheilaCameronArtist as per the lengthy discussion on her talk page. Keeping on track with the point of this AfC (discussion on article, not editor), I believe that although the article is well written, it struggles to assert notability however could be improved. samtar (msg) 23:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. samtar (msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samtar (msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • GrammarFascist I have recently learnt that my edits which involved replacing the template with speedy deletion are wrong so I am sorry for those. However, I do think its troubling that you created an article someone who is clearly the subject of the article. The issue of notability is still an issue here. Please note that I have deeply considered your effort when editing this article and it does cause me problems to propose getting rid of it but we should look to a bigger picture and that is keeping Wikipedia an encyclopaedia rather than a directory. Many people are artists but that alone does not make them notable on Wikipedia. Olowe2011 Talk 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Borderline notability, just edged over the line by the "Free Katie" stuff, but I could be convinced otherwise. BMK (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I maintain that I have done nothing wrong in creating the article under discussion at the request of the subject. Wikipedia:Requested articles exists in part so that people who have a conflict of interest, particularly people who would themselves be the subject of an article or who are members of the company or organization that would be the subject of the requested article, can avoid the problems inherent to creating such articles themselves. SheilaCameronArtist made her request at the Teahouse, but that was not judged an inappropriate venue by any other Teahouse volunteers. As for her having pointed me to some of the sources used in the article, I don't see how that is a problem provided that I evaluated each source for reliability and for its appropriateness for inclusion in the article — which I did. I did not simply write an article "to order" without considering Wikipedia standards and policies. Indeed, all the artist contributed were possible sources and a couple of factual corrections; she did not draft the article, as the conversation on her talk page shows. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Folks, let's get back to the issue of WP:GNG and drop the issues of the subject requesting an article about herself and GrammarFascist creating the article. Some of the accusations, both against GrammarFascist and the subject herself, are unsupported and border on WP:BLP violations or personal attacks. In any event, it's a distraction to the appropriate discussion of the subject's notability and will not assist the closing administrator in assessing consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add comment And just for the record, this is hardly the first (or the last) article to have been created after someone with COI has been at the Teahouse asking for help. Editors there do an independent check (which can be rather ruthless) to see if the subject is notable, and if it is hey why not. I specifically remember the request for Andrea Nye that went from help-cry to article in a matter of hours. w.carter-Talk 09:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the issue here is notability. And in terms of notability, the sources appear to be there, even within the existing article, to show in-depth coverage, from a variety of sources, and not simply local coverage (although there's quite a bit of that). Onel5969 TT me 17:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been neutral so far, just fixing up the article in case it was kept, but I did a search to check how far her fame had reached, and when I found her name in an article in one of the major Swedish newspapers, I think that points to some notablility. Article is now included as a ref. w.carter-Talk 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not much discussion, but the deletion proposal remains in substance unopposed, so this is deleted until somebody finds reliable sources that could serve as the basis for a recreation.  Sandstein  09:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Rimlyanin

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

Not only is this one unsourced, looking at the Malagasy article (which is one of the worst articles I've seen) shows almost basically nothing and only has a plain freebase.com link and it seemed to have been started by a bot in February. My searches also found absolutely nothing aside from this which has a photo. Granted this is a Russian 14th century subject so I imagine any good sources aren't easily available but I simply no signs of improvement here and this has stayed the same since starting in October 2007. Pinging author KNewman. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The source found by User:SwisterTwister|SwisterTwister]] is an obvious WP mirror, with an irrelevant photo of some one from the Soviet era, clearly about 600 years after the time of the subject. His calim to fame is casting a bell. If the bell survives, I would have expected an inscription on the bell to be a source, but apparently none do. All we have are chronicles that I do not have access to. "the Roman" might indicate that he came from Byzantium, where the people called themselves Romanoi -Romans, which might just be credible. However, the whole article seems based on brief allusion in chronicles, padded out with interpretive matter. The chances are that nothing else is known or knowable. If someone can provide source citations, I would be willing to keep this, but until we get something I have to suspend judgment. It may be significant that there seems to be no equivalent article in the Russian WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to be notable (for example, mentioned in the book by Sergey Solovyov, the mainstream text on the history of Russia, here. However, the text of the article seems to be a translation of this webpage, which is apparently copyrighted. Let us wait for the explanations of the creator of the article (who seems to be inactive though). It might be possible to rephrase though, I am in doubt as what to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation, no prejudice against renomination in the future. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lawson (album)

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

Seems to be a non-notable album: given it's title not worth converting to a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This album meets Wikipedia's criteria for a notable album:

An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

It is indisputable that Jamie Lawson is to be considered a 'notable musician'. This article does meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, as all 5 entries on the list can be checked. This article currently includes more than just a basic track listing, with charting information and other release information to be added after the release date of October 9 2015.

HeyJude70 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now because News found a few links and I would've honestly suggested redirecting to the artist regardless of the title as it may still be applicable. I suggest maybe keeping because it hasn't been released yet so... SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman Pictures

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

Notability? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alts:
country initial:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
country name(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
founder:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
formats:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 16:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TeleCAD-GIS

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

No reliable third-party sources to establish notability of this product. Kelly hi! 14:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Srikanta Sastri

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

Promotional article on borderline notable academic. It is unclear why the article contains such a lengthy "Academician" section when it has no direct bearing on the notability of the subject. Almost all references are to the works of the subject himself. Google Scholar shows no work getting 10+ citation i.e. a likely failure of WP:PROF. If kept someone needs to volunteer to stubify this article to 5% of its present length Solomon7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have deleted a major part of the Academician section as it was completely off-topic. Bharatiya29 (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails the notability criteria for WP:PROF. — Sanskari Hangout 14:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should note that Google Scholar is not going to be great for academics who (1) write in non-English languages and (2) died before the preeminence of the Internet, as their work is likely not digitized and cannot be easily counted. However, this article is too promotional and packed with primary sources to make heads or tails of the subject's actual impact/importance and would need to be rewritten from scratch. czar 15:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Morning (A-ha song)

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

As much as I truly love this group, this particular single of theirs only seems to have attracted a little bit of attention. It's not really that notable. This particular track seems to have only peaked at #78 in the U.K., for example. I wouldn't be averse to a redirect in some form, but I think this particular page should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the top ranking countries of the OGAE Video Contest

List of the top ranking countries of the OGAE Video Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a content fork of winners information already contained at OGAE Video Contest#Winners. Also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 14#On Notability of OGAE Contests (which an editor pointed out WP:WHYN) noted that OGAE events are not notable enough to warrant individual articles per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:N. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can we also please keep tetchy discussion of unrelated current events out of AFD, please? Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Cope

May not meet the notability criteria for artists. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Cope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see lots of links, although nothing particularly significant. As User:richardelainechambers says, let's give it a chance to grow. Note: last edit was to fix the formatting of the AfD, which was somehow reversed. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how AfD works. Either there is evidence for notability or there isn't. At present there is no evidence in independent and reliable sources that he passes WP:ARTIST, nor is there extensive coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG, ergo this article need to be deleted per this AfD nomination. The draft can be userfied so that if he becomes notable the creator can work on it and move it anew. It can also be undeleted by requesting the deleting admin to do so if new coverage is available, but I don't think that's likely anytime soon. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments--two keep votes aren't very enlightening. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to iPhone. As a possible misspelling or typo. But that redirect target may be changed editorially, and further discussions should determine whether to merge any of this content anywhere. The only consensus that can be gathered here is that this should not remain a separate article.  Sandstein  09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPhony

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

I simply see no better notability and improvement aside from being a 2007 controversy involving Apple and I'm not even sure if this is notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere such as Apple or Apple controversies. My searches found some links but obviously nothing better here and here (this last one seems to be something else as this 2007 iPhony no longer seems to be active hence the outdated tag). Pinging recent editor Dialectric and the only still fully active user from the first AfD DGG as well as author Ju66l3r. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep & merge somewhere The software is for an obsolete system, which is not a reason for deletion, but was never really notable in its own right, though there were some significant comments such as medialooper [6] & techmeme [7] . It's a minor offshoot of the Apple-Palm patent battle described in engadget [8] and elsewhere; I think it ended with a licensing arrangement--see CNN [9]. The term has also been used in several other meanings, which , as SwisterTwister noted, makes the search quite tedious. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input--and we can't merge this unless we have a target. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and create a list somewhere At this point it seems almost impossible for this article to be notable, seeing as HP snapped up Palm years ago and nothing has been heard of it or any of the tricks and hacks, however it could be preserved in a list alongside other 3rd party software and hacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasstar1 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Noting that while there are a lot of SPAs involved in this discussion, there are also "Keep" opinions from a lot of regulars that appear grounded in policy, and nobody apart from the nominator has concurred about deletion. This is not an endorsement of the practice of canvassing, and there should be no prejudice against a further relisting in due course to try and get an opinion that hasn't been tainted by puppetry and canvassing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Euthanasia

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

Hoaxish shock-value website "church" whose claim to notability hinged on "mentions" by other media rather than in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This could probably be merged into the article for Chris Korda. I am finding some mention for the site here and there, but there's not a huge-huge amount. Given that Korda's own article is pretty slim, I don't see why this wouldn't make for a good merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Since Korda's article is also sourced only to a short blurb in Wired column of short blurbs and a glancing mention in the New York Times, it's probably a better candidate for deletion than merging. - Dravecky (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (relocated from talk page) It's my understanding that the question of whether the CoE is sufficiently notable to merit a WP article was settled in 2008, by the following comment: "This article should not be deleted. It has been the subject of serious scholarly attention, as indicated by the fact the Editor in Chief of the recently published (in 2005) academic encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, included an entry in the Encyclopedia dedicated to the Church of Euthanasia. I have edited the references to include this academic reference. The COE is provocative, but not satire or parody. They represent a serious strain within streams of radical environmentalism. The same goes for Chris Korda. As the founder of this stream of radical environmentalism, he/she is noteworthy. BZ, Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Religion. 6 Feb 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBradleyBayhorse (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)"
The alleged lack of references is another matter. Tokyogirl79's claim that "I am finding some mention for the site here and there, but there's not a huge-huge amount" misses the point. It doesn't matter how many sources reference the CoE *now*, what matters is how many sources have referenced it *in the past*, and whether those sources are considered sufficiently reliable. -- Victimofleisure (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The last AfD was in 2005 and Wikipedia's notability standards have tightened a bit since then. It's not enough to be mentioned in reliable sources. It's not enough for an organization to be listed in a directory of similar organizations. Notability must be proven by in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. (That Wired blurb on the Korda article is useful but on its own it's insufficient.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Church of Euthanasia was very active in the Boston area in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I (Boston-based artist and arts educator Mark Hänser) will attest that it was a very active enterprise. Maria da Luz Fernandes, an arts scholar from Portugal, has provided me with the following information:
"The Church of Euthanasia article should not be deleted. I am an artist and academic with a published master thesis called “Tabula Rasa – Revolution, Subversion and Transgression”, published in January 2015 by the Faculty of Fine-Arts of Lisbon, the thesis is available for the public in its physical form in any faculty in Lisbon and in digital form anywhere around the world, through the faculty website: http://www.belasartes.ulisboa.pt/. This thesis includes an interview with the artist Chris Korda, the founder of the non-profit educational foundation Church of Euthanasia, which was one of the main topics of my thesis.
Regarding the question if the Church of Euthanasia is sufficiently notable, I believe there it is not necessary to present proof that it is active now, because most of Wikipedia articles are about people or events that have occurred in the past." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephos9 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are two elements to an article's existence on Wikipedia: verifiability and notability. This nomination doesn't question whether the organization existed or that it did things, only that this activity did not draw sufficient in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources to prove notability. It's not a measure of worthiness or currency, only in-depth coverage. Mentions are not enough. Appearances are not enough. It's not a judgment of any sort, other that whether the subject meet's Wikipedia's notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the tightening of standards Dravecky refers to: user Bombaybunny correctly points out on the talk page that "The Church of Euthanasia has been published in many periodicals of note, mostly European in origin." The following in-depth coverage from major European newspapers should be quite sufficient to establish notability:
And we shouldn't overlook the far-right perspective: Prince Philip’s Malthusians launch New Age killer cults, Executive Intelligence Review, 7/18/1997, Mark Burdman and Roger Moore. -Victimofleisure (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My name is Maddy Weaver and I am a producer of a documentary in progress of the Church of Euthanasia. Deleting the Wikipedia page would be a detriment to this artistic endeavor because if it is difficult for a potential viewer to research the subject because Wikipedia believes the subject is unimportant, it would be difficult to make the case to that potential viewer that my work, which is to be solely based on the achievements of the Church of Euthanasia, would be worthy of their time. I would like to give you whatever sources you need to decide the Church of Euthanasia is a subject worthy of a Wikipedia page, but there have been many reputable sources already cited, so I am unclear about exactly what is needed. The problem could be that the Church was active mainly in a time where articles would have been recorded in physical newspapers, therefore the only online links to the reputable sources would be to articles that had been transcribed on the Church of Euthanasia website. If this is a problem, I have been using the original articles for research and could scan them and post them to the page. If this will not work, I would like an example of exactly what you need, I am sure I could furnish it.
  • What we would need would be in-depth coverage of the CoE in reliable sources like newspapers. If you can provide these, what we'd need would be things like the name of the article, the person who wrote it, the paper's name, and the date it was published. If you can do that, this would be incredibly helpful. These don't have to be on the Internet but we do have to be able to verify it, ie, that you can show a clipping if requested. As long as we have that, it's golden. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tokyogirl79, The sources given in my previous comment are all in-depth coverage from major European newspapers and available online; the links point to newspaper archives, not to copies on the CoE website. There's also lots more in-depth coverage that isn't online anymore, or never was online. Most of the in-depth coverage isn't in English, but there are exceptions, e.g. the Dan Burrows Boston Magazine profile (1997), the Icon (magazine) profile by the late Shari Roman (1999), and David Grad's extended profile, originally published in New York Press as "Eat Me: Rev. Chris Korda Dines For Our Sins" (1996) and subsequently republished as a cover story in The Phoenix (newspaper) ("The Four Pillars of Euthanism").
There are also patterns of sustained coverage over time, for example in the Dutch and German press in 2002 after outrage over the "I Like To Watch" video caused the CoE to be temporarily banned in the Netherlands. Here are some sources on that are still available online:
  • Comment: The Church of Euthanasia article should not be deleted.
Regarding the question of whether or not the Church of Euthanasia is sufficiently notable, I do not consider it necessary to present proof as to whether it is active now, since most Wikipedia articles refer to people or events from the past. But I will try to provide information and sources to fill any gaps that might exist in the present article.
I, Maria da Luz Fernandes, am an artist and academic with a published master thesis called “Tabula Rasa – Revolution, Subversion and Transgression” (published in the 13th of April of 2015, on the “FBA- Dissertações de Mestrado” in the Collection by the Faculty of Fine-Arts of Lisbon, available for the public in its physical form in any faculty in Lisbon and in digital form anywhere around the world, in the following website: http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/18155. This thesis includes an interview with Chris Korda. This topic was and is essential for the development of my academic work, as I continue my studies in a Doctorate of Arts. I can only logically assume that other academics studying the Church of Euthanasia and their cellular topics (euthanasia, abortion, antinatalism) would need a platform to follow their research, and the most common platform is, as we all know, Wikipedia. Therefore I believe deleting the page would disfavor of the academics and general public.
On August 8, 1997, an episode of The Jerry Springer Show aired about the Church. In this episode, “I want to join a suicide cult”, Springer interviews some of the most famous members of this organization: Chris Korda; Vermin Supreme, a well-known activist, the main subject of a released documentary, by Steve Onderick and Nina Paley, a world-wide famous cartoon artist. In 2002, Nina Paley also released a short-film entitled “Thank you for not breeding”, available in this link, wherein she explores the issue of overpopulation by interviewing Chris Korda, and includes footage of art performances by the same organization.
There is also a documentary currently being filmed about Chris Korda and the CoE, to be released in 2017, titled “Save the Planet, Kill Yourself”, directed by Steve Onderick. Quoting Onderick on the official facebook page of the documentary, they “will launch the Kickstarter on October first complete with a trailer, and travel with it from Portland Maine to Minneapolis, MN.” (9/19/2015, at 18:13). The fact that there is a documentary being filmed in this moment about the CoE should be more than sufficient proof of the notability of this organization, and their right to be represented in a Wikipedia article.
Sources (compiled with the previously suggested by Wikipedia user Victimofleisure)
Also
Cffmariadaluz (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a Wikipedia editor who, as previously noted, has known Chris Korda personally, witnessed the media phenomenon that was/is The Church of Euthanasia, and will vouch for the authenticity of Maria da Luz Fernandes's links and contributions, I think -- with all the additional material presented here -- deleting "Church of Euthanasia" as an article would be ridiculous and a negation of what Wikipedia's mission is all about. What's needed NOW is for a NEW article to be written that incorporates all the "new" source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephos9 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do not delete.

(Sorry, this Wikipedia editor can't currently remember her login password.) I'm bemused at this tempest in a teacup. Seems like the question of deletion has been raised by only one person, and the efforts of someone else to do a major overhaul/update on the page are actively prevented by the "flagged for deletion" status etc. Two things come to my mind when reviewing the situation: 1: the Church in question has had a significant impact and is cited in various types of texts [religion, sociology, social phenomena, environmentalism], both online and off, not least of which are cited in the post above by Cffmariadaluz. Saying that the phenomenon is no longer currently written about is like saying that Jonestown or the Tylenol Scare is no longer written about; it is still a phenomenon that calls for a reference, an explanation, a source of information. For example: every fall, according to City of Boston, about 250,000 new college students arrive in the Boston area alone, and they're going to see / hear reference to the Church. They would quite reasonably jump on Wikipedia to wonder "what's this 'save the planet, kill yourself' slogan from?" and that answer - among other reasons - is what Wikipedia is for. A reference. So citation and continued relevance: check. 2. Merging with the page of the individual who founded the church: that would actively cause ambiguity, rather than disambiguate. I vote against, as it would cause confusion. The founder seems to have a career in several fields (an inventor, a DJ, a musical technologist) and recently presented at a music technology conference. [10] Merging the pages would further confound rather than clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.114.11 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: User:71.192.114.11 is absolutely correct. It IS a tempest in a teacup, and merging pages WOULD further compound rather than clarify. There seems to be an agenda on the part of User:Dravecky here that conflicts with the mission of Wikipedia and, as User:71.192.114.11 notes, deletion would do a disservice to many curious new college students in the Greater Boston area. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Remember to assume good faith and rest assured that my "agenda" (what little of it there is) is purely policy driven. In fact, I'm very much an inclusionist when a topic can be shown to cross the basic thresholds of verifiability and notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a freshman orientation guide for Boston college students nor is it a way to publicize upcoming documentaries. I don't care when the coverage is from, just that it's in-depth about the subject and from reliable third-party sources. Also, the article must be factual. If this is an art project, it needs to be called an art project. - Dravecky (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply No one ever said the Church of Euthanasia was/is "an art project". It is an entity that has influenced artists. And no one ever said that Wikipedia was an orientation guide for Boston college students and i specifically did NOT use the word "freshmen". My words are being twisted into some kind of syntactic pretzel. MY point remains that 1) The Church of Euthanasia exists, 2) It has existed for many years, and 3) Deleting the article serves no purpose whatsoever. Just because one might find the tenets of the CoE distasteful or shocking does not mean the CoE does not exist, nor that it does not have adherents. Someone on this thread mentioned "Jonestown as an antecedent. As a former writer for the Boston Phoenix, I can attest to the coverage the CoE was given as a serious enterprise. One can question the "good taste" of the content of this piece in the Boston Phoenix by Chris Wright from the December 20-27 piece issue [[11]], but the fact that it warranted inclusion in a publication available to the over 4,000,000 people in the Greater Boston area is testament to media, and by extension, popular, interest in the Church of Euthanasia. As a Wikipedia editor of 9 years standing, I will continue to vote AGAINST deletion. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I, too, vote against deletion. Dravecky slightly misstates the notability criterion by repeatedly using the phrase "in depth" rather than "significant." The notability guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And "Significant coverage" "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It seems indisputable to me from the number and variety of sources mentioned in comments above that the Church of Euthanasia has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, "it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." Zenomax (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let’s recap. This AfD begins with “Hoaxish shock-value website ‘church’” yet no sources are provided for the allegations that the CoE is 1) a hoax, 2) lacking in value other than shock, 3) confined to the internet, and 4) not truly a religion. Even if these allegations were proved they wouldn’t necessarily preclude notability. The existence of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” has been proved, but this coverage isn't discussed or even acknowledged; instead new allegations are made that the CoE is “an art project,” publicity, etc. This begins to suggest bias however inadvertent. And regarding the exhortation to assume good faith: “The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF often reflects such a rush to judgment, namely the judgment that bad faith is being assumed.” (AAGF) Victimofleisure (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a Wiki-editor and someone who has written about the press hysteria in The Netherlands about the Church of Euthanasia, I agree wholeheartedly with Victimofleisure, and I vote against deletion.Karin Spaink (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though the organization is apparently not as active now it was clearly notable in its time. I don't need to repost the research already listed above which shows in-depth coverage, and it seems like this is a good case of Notability is not temporary. Though it may indeed be a "Hoaxish shock-value website 'church.'" it appears to be a notable one. Slamorte (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do not delete, do not merge pages. Michelle Glaros PhD is a Fulbright grant recipient, published author, and scholar. While teaching at the University of Florida, Dr. Glaros assigned her students to practice persuasive writing and analysis of arguments.

She offered a small number of places where her students could find people to hone their skills with, including the Church of Euthanasia. As you can imagine, university students found something at CoE to object to, and proceeded to make, and then invariably lose, arguments against CoE members and their logic and daring and imagination. The use of CoE by a scholar of good repute, in an official academic setting, is notable, as is the ability of her students to find and contextualize the Church of Euthanasia and its website and members via online sources like Wikipedia. Even if no professor is using the Church in this way at this time, the past use and attention within academia suggests retaining access to the basic information about this phenomenon. As a phenomenon, the students contacted Church members other than the Rev. Chris Korda, suggesting that a merge would inaccurately reflect this phenomenon and the record of attention to it.

Sources

(unrelated film work documenting Dr. Glaros's employment by the University of Florida and contribution to its academic culture)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yikes. A heads up would-be and current participants: a flood of people who have made almost no edits to Wikipedia other than to opine in a discussion like this is typically taken as a sign of canvassing and tends to give experienced editors the impression that people must be canvassing because the article would not be kept if left to others to apply Wikipedia's guidelines (see also WP:SPA). As it happens, I agree it should be kept, but a word of advice: unless you're providing new sources that meet standards presented at WP:RS, you're not doing your position any favors simply by jumping in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thank you, Rhododendrites. That is a very helpful comment and clarification. I understand the concern about canvassing. Anticipating this, I am presently working with Maria da Luz Fernandes, who did doctoral research on the Church of Euthanasia, to create a new article that will address the content issues raised here and that I will edit to conform to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Perhaps we can table further discussion until this new article is completed and Wiki-edited? I will post the rewritten article on this page, unless directed to do elsewhere by an administrator. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nephos9: Anyone who has a conflict of interest regarding the subject should not edit the article directly. That means anyone with a personal or financial connection to the subject (you'll have to determine for yourself the extent to which that applies to you). The idea, as explained through Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and its counterpart the conflict of interest policy, is that someone with financial, personal, or other direct connection to an article subject can't be expected/assumed to write about that subject in a neutral way. The best way to work on an article when one has a "COI" is by using the talk page (Talk:Church of Euthanasia) to make suggestions, then let someone else implement the change. That said, the scope of this deletion discussion is narrower. The specifics of how it's written are less important than establishing notability, pointing to sources which constitute passage of the general notability guideline or the the notability guideline specific to organizations. To my mind, that's been done sufficiently here, but we'll see. The discussion goes for seven days, at which point an uninvolved editor determines if there is a consensus to keep or delete. I'll add the page to my watchlist in case you decide to post to the talk page and others aren't responding (it's not a subject I was familiar with before stumbling across this discussion). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Thank you, Rhododendrites ~ our comments seem to have cross-posted simultaneously. Please advise re: your thoughts about my previous reply. Thank you. Nephos9 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this, hoping that some more seasoned Wikipedia editors will weigh in. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment: As a scholar working on the subject of CoE, I consider the following data as viable for the databox:
Church of Euthanasia
(not to type in: Image) http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/graphics/coe_330x200.gif
(not to type in: Image description) The symbol of the Church of Euthanasia is represented by a greek temple with the Four Pillars
Abbreviation CoE
Headquarters Boston, MA. USA
Founder Chris Korda, Pastor Kim
Origin 1992, registered in the state of Delaware
Official website http://churchofeuthanasia.org/ (talk) 6:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both articles and Do not merge. Chris Korda has independent notability from the Church of Euthanasia, and, as user “71.192.114.11” wrote, “merging the pages would further confound rather than clarify.” (at 20:27, 22 September 2015 UTC) I will try to provide sources of information to clarify Chris Korda’s notability outside CoE, as a well-known musician and developer of popular software.
Extended content about Chris Korda doesn't belong here

Chris Korda is the great-nephew of Hungarian-born film magnate Sir Alexander Korda, who was very prominent in the British film industry, as he was the founder of London Films and the owner of British Lion Films. Korda is the only progeny of prominent writer and novelist Michael Korda, editor-in-chief at Simon & Shuster in New York. [1] Korda has an acclaimed electronic music career, having released two longplayers and six singles and EPs. [2] Korda [15] toured Europe with his album “Man of the Future”, released in 2003 by the German electronic music record label International Deejay Gigolo Records. Korda then toured worldwide, using his own software to perform live, including the 2001 Sonar music festival in Barcelona. Chris Korda is the developer of more than five popular open-source software programs: Korda created in 2005 the VJ software Whorld, a open-source visualizer that utilizes math in order to create psychedelic animation and artwork. An example of the usage of this software can be found here. In 2006, Korda released FFRend, a “Parallel-processing renderer for Freeframe V1 video effect plugins”. In 2008, Korda designed Fractice, a fractal renderer.

Chris Korda is also an inventor of music software, such as Waveshop(2013), a bit-perfect lossless free audio editor, reviewed in several websites, such as The Windows Club, Hectic Geek and Betta News. He is also the creator of ChordEase(2014). This is a free software that is compatible with any MIDI instrument and essentially it makes notes easier to play. ChordEase was presented at the music and technology conference NIME in 2015. Chris Korda also developed software for the world's first color 3D printer [3].

  • Discography:

Longplayer

1999: Six Billion Humans Can't Be Wrong (DJ Mix; as Chris Korda & The Church Of Euthanasia; International DeeJay Gigolo Records)

2003: The Man Of The Future (International Deejay Gigolo Records)

Singles and EPs

1993: Save The Planet, Kill Yourself (Kevorkian Records)

1997: Save The Planet, Kill Yourself (Re-Release, International Deejay Gigolos)

1998: Sex Is Good (International Deejay Gigolos)

2002: I Like To Watch (Null Records)

2002: When It Rains EP (International Deejay Gigolos)

2003: The Man Of The Future (International Deejay Gigolos)

  • References:

non-modal music] Chris Korda for Nime, June 2015

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGDG_82Smxo

Cffmariadaluz (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The vote was split, but all of the delete votes were cast before a number of sources were found covering this individual that demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ozborn

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER Derek Andrews (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 14:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Michael Korda married first wife Carolyn Keese in 1958, and had one child, Chris, leader of the Church of Euthanasia.
  2. ^ http://www.discogs.com/artist/18625-Chris-Korda
  3. ^ http://patents.justia.com/inventor/chris-korda
  4. ^ Akmal Saleh and Joel Ozborn, a comic couple. The Daily Telegraph.
  5. ^ Adelaide Fringe review 2015: Joel Ozborn – Be Here Now. The Advertiser.
  6. ^ Joel Ozborn set to impress with his Sydney Comedy Festival show. The Daily Telegraph.
  7. ^ "Joel Ozborn - Stand Out". theage.com.au.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Weinberger

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

Highest citation count of the subject is 31 (that too a paper co-authored with doctoral adviser). Doesn't passes WP:PROF Solomon7968 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 19:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Did you review the New Yorker article? If not, we don't know what their coverage is like. We do know what the book The Predictors says:

    David Weinberger should be recorded in the annals of finance as the original rocket scientist on Wall Street.

    The book certainly is not just a passing coverage of Weinberger. He also has an Erdos number of 3. He's not a professor - he's a financial professional, and seems like a notable one to me. II | (t - c) 23:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Rita Ora concert tours#Ora Tour. There is consensus that this article does not meet notability requirements. I'm redirecting as it is the option most in-line with policy. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ora Tour

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

Not a notable tour as per WP:CONCERT with only five dates and no significant coverage. Karst (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (face) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petey and Jaydee

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

There's no evidence to suggest this is still active and the new external link is now closed and my own searches only found a few links here and nothing good, thus with no signs of improvement and existing like this since February 2007, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Pinging past editor Dl2000. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous primary, www.momentumanimationstudios.com, seems to be retrievable from archive.org e.g. [16]. Rather odd that it is difficult to find secondary coverage for a series which was apparently shown on SBS, and distributed internationally. However, it seems to have aired on G4 (TV channel) [17]. The premise and asserted distribution alone should have generated some notoriety and thus more notability coverage. Perhaps additional secondary coverage is available under news subscriptions, etc. Dl2000 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could consider merging to G4's Late Night Peepshow, the particular anthology where P&J aired on G4. Dl2000 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lesbian fiction. For now. Consensus is that the articles in this area need reorganizing; but this can be done non-editorially e.g. as proposed by Lankiveil. Once that's done, this content can be merged from the history, subject to consensus, to wherever it fits.  Sandstein  08:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian non fiction

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

"Lesbian non fiction" is not a properly defined subject. Apparently, it is supposed to mean non-fiction books dealing with lesbianism - but there seems to be no real rationale for such an article, any more than there would be a rationale for starting "Chinese non-fiction" as an article about non-fiction books dealing with subjects related to China. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, for the record, was created by an editor whose username matches the name of one of the few authors actually listed in this laughably incomplete article — thus igniting my definite suspicion that her intent was to promote her book rather than to write a genuinely encyclopedic article about the topic. I have posted a request at WP:LGBT to have this merged with lesbian fiction into an expanded article on lesbian literature (which currently exists only as a redirect to the fiction article, as if non-fiction weren't also literature), to properly parallel our article on gay male literature, which properly covers both the fiction and non-fiction aspects. I don't have enough expertise in the subject area to do it myself without some assistance — about all I could really do is cut and paste this piece of crap, and then add a small handful of Canadian lesbians I've read — but I still think the most appropriate solution here is to merge into an article on lesbian literature. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Bearcat that this and Lesbian Fiction should be a Merge into lesbian literature ABF99 (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something of note is that back in 2013 there was a discussion of making one general LGBT article on fiction, though. I'm sort of undecided on this. There's the possibility of it being redundant to other articles if we keep it separate, but I'm hesitating slightly because fiction and non-fiction are sometimes handled differently in how they're written and covered. If we had an article on LGBT non-fiction, I'd support a merge there over a merge to an article about fiction, to be honest. But since we don't have one, this would have to be written from scratch. Anyone interested? I've never really written something like this before so I'm not sure how to get started, but I can help look for sources and with writing once someone gives me a specific part of the article to work on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Agreed. Article has been significantly improved since the last AfD nomination. Closing without prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 Talk 19:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible Support Fund

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

I just voted keep in the last AfD because the author was willing to improve the article. Seems like the author hasn't done anything. So, I keep my word and renominate this article for deletion with the same rationale the last nominator had. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Focuses quite a but on a controversy- perhaps WP:NPOV issues. I can't seem to view one of the sources. Another is the daily mirror, frowned upon per WP:PUS. The third appears to be a government source (not independent from the subject). At this time, on my end, it really only has one reliable source. Most other sources I can find are directly involved with the fund (WP:NRVE). Perhaps a mention at Welfare state in the United Kingdom or another article similar to that (maybe not that one specifically) would be warranted, but I'm not sure about a stand alone article. (P.S. I personally have less/no interest in the outcome of this discussion) Regards —☮JAaron95 Talk 07:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 Talk 07:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the second diff in my comment. WP:DEADLINENOW (also an essay) prescribes, "...if an article contains false or unverifiable content, you should correct it as soon as possible." Great Britain is not within my area of expertise, but all I'm seeing here is a decent start article. I feel that the subject is notable and it appears there is adequate coverage to write a complete article WP:NEXIST. Additionally, bringing NPOV accusations (I don't see a slant, or a motive for one) in this nomination, hamstrings the editor that you've apparently made some kind of side-deal with for your earlier keep vote. -- 009o9 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Side-deal? Hmmm.—☮JAaron95 Talk 18:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not the person who set conditions on your support Here, introducing a 30 day limit that nobody else mentioned? Further, you've simply restated the original AfD reasoning, which was for a completely different version.[21] and the article is vastly improved since the speedy made by the same editor.[22]
In essence, your AfD reasoning boils down to "Seems like the author hasn't done anything." I'm not seeing that in WP:DEL-REASON and IMHO the current version of this article is WP:ATD regardless to one voter's conditions in the previous keep AfD. User:DanielJCooper has offered his expertise to voluntarily offer his time to document GB social services. I see no reason to put time constraints on his work, nor delete his useful contributions. -- 009o9 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minister Jade

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

This seems to have been a one-time event coverage and there's not much information about this and my searches found no better links than this. With the article an orphan and no current article for Steve Bialik, there's not much to suggest improvement and keeping and this has existed staying the same since February 2009. Notifying author JigsyQ. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Mason (conductor)

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

My searches simply found nothing solidly good to suggest improvement with Books and News finding results for other people and the closest I found for a music-related James Mason was this (some of them are for the early 1900s and a few for a UT Jazz James Mason from the late 1980s so I'm not sure if that's actually him considering there's not much information here). Pinging Jerzy and J Milburn. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bladerunner Radio

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

Internet radio station with no substantive claim of notability under WP:NMEDIA. The only claim of notability here is a vague and unsourced and unquantifiable claim of a "world wide following" — and there's no evidence of reliable source coverage, as the only source here is an entry in a non-notable blog. As with any other topic, internet radio services do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist; they must demonstrate and reliably source clear and verifiable evidence of notability, but this doesn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) - After work done by editor to beef up references, and per the later evaluations, article now appears to have a consensus to keep Onel5969 . TT me 03:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zinfandel Advocates and Producers

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

Non-notable non-profit. Fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe delete for now unless it can be drafted and userfied as although News, Books and Highbeam all found results, there's likely no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about move to draft space for now? A brief look in Google yielded no articles about Zinfandel Advocates and Producers that would establish notability, but the annual zinfandel festival put on by the organization, variously called Zinfandel Experience or ZAP Experience, does appear to meet the notability standard, with multiple in-depth articles. There may or may not be enough material to support a short section about the sponsoring organization in a Zinfandel Experience article. I am willing to convert the existing article into one appropriate for Wikipedia, but agree it should not stay in mainspace as is. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the ZAP group since I like wine, so I looked into it further. I spent some research time and found literally dozens of references to ZAP, not only for the Zinfandel Experience that GrammarFascist cites, but for legislature introduced, efforts to find the origins of Zinfandel and what appears to be a pretty important project called the Zinfandel Heritage Project. I've been assembling all this and would like to make an effort to submit a fairly complete rewrite soon that to me appears to fulfill the notability requirements of wikipedia. [User:PH Solution|PH Solution]] (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am answering new user PH Solution's somewhat off-topic questions elsewhere (on my talk page, where they initiated a conversation with me after I put a welcome message on their talk page). Thanks for contributing to the discussion here, though, PH Solution. :) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, this article needs to be improved, but I am very confident that the organization is notable. Disclosure: I live in California wine country and have many friends who work in the industry. I have read many articles about this organization over the years, but not all such coverage is readily available online. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment note that a major expansion and rewrite has just bee done by PH Solution. I urge previous participants in this discussion to reconsider in the light of this major change. @Ukexpat, Northamerica1000, SwisterTwister, GrammarFascist, and Cullen328: DES (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As promised last week, I did a lot of research on this and think I've addressed the issue of notability, as well as increasing content. I initially thought I would just expand the stub, but it wasn't going in a useful direction so I decided to replace it, after reading all the encouragement on this site to "be bold". I hope my contribution to this page is worthwhile. It's an enjoyable project and I look forward to working on some other articles.PH Solution (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The (impressively researched) edits by PH Solution are more than sufficient to establish notability. I have struck out my previous comment above. With a little more work this article that was on the verge of deletion might soon make Good Article status. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was just informed by a very helpful person that I can vote on keeping this after making a contribution, so I wanted to do so. Thanks!!!PH Solution (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Vergara

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

Delete: non-notable entertainment personality. Article almost entirely composed of cruft. Quis separabit? 01:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is an unreliable source and has always been for Wikipedia purposes. You'll stop at nothing, I guess. Quis separabit? 13:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I doing something wrong here? Who is the one who'll stop at nothing? You have soo many AFDs. Why??What are you doing?--Jondel (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You haven't done anything wrong, although IMDb carries little weight on Wikipedia. It's just that after the ANI issue we had and the points made by yourself and @Obsidian Soul, regarding the quality of my nominations, I guess I somehow made a valid nom, as yours is the only keep vote. Bizarre! Best always, @Jondel, you are a good guy. Quis separabit? 05:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong to add IMDb. If the the article gets deleted, I am happy it got deleted by this voting process which shows it is not notable at this point. Kindly respect my right to be 'bizarre'. Best from me as well and always. --Jondel (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harinder Rana

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

Delete: non-notable music industry executive. Quis separabit? 01:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Reform Party of Ontario. Consensus to redirect. Both the New Reform Party and REAL Women of Canada were suggested. I'm redirecting to the New Reform Party since Scime is currently the president of this party while her sole mention in the REAL Women section is a single sentence quote. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Scime

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

Unknown and non-notable party president. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least in theory, her past presidency of REAL Women of Canada would count for more than her presidency of a small fringe political party — but there's not a lot of genuinely substantive coverage of her in that role shown here, because after the first three footnotes (not enough to satisfy GNG by itself), her notability and sourceability turns exclusively local and/or unreliable (The Interim). And as far as I can tell no other president of REAL Women besides her actually has a standalone WP:BLP (not even Gwen Landolt, who's the only former president of REAL Women that almost anybody not directly involved in the organization might actually be able to name right off the top of their heads.) So there's not enough here to get her over WP:GNG. To be fair, this article was created in 2005, a time when our notability rules for politicians were a lot looser than they are now — being president of a political party, even a minor fringe party, was enough at the time. But consensus changed, and it isn't enough anymore. Delete, though I also wouldn't necessarily object to a redirect to the political party if there's a consensus to go that way instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to either New Reform Party of Ontario or REAL Women of Canada, I'm not sure which is better. - Found zero on News, JSTOR or Newspapers. Books had a couple of brief mentions, as did Highbeam, while Scholar had a single brief mention. Onel5969 TT me 18:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested as I found some links at Books and Highbeam, but there's not much for more of an article. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May Ling Su

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

Delete: porn actress; fails WP:PORN, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. North America1000 03:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that other editors have made claims that she may be notable in her field as I am just not familiar with "menstrual artists", maybe I'll learn something. Quis separabit? 05:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep- I don't usually close on crappy !votes but the constant arguing between you 2 is bloody draining and I think this AFD's had the life drained out of it enough for 1 week so I'm wrapping this up, Sources provided meet WP:BASIC so overall keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Abrenica

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

Delete:non-notable former child actor; mostly reality TV. He has only six acting credits at IMDb and some reality show appearances as himself, which does not an actor make. This is clearly a case of TOO SOON, without prejudice upon review. Quis separabit? 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.North America1000 03:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jondel's vote should be disregarded. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and "Per Nactor" is woefully insufficient with regards to compliance with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself"). Quis separabit? 02:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out as irrelevant. Accused. Not convicted. And you did the accusing. Don't vaguely imply an uninvolved third party.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACTOR#1. The practice of the nominator of counting acting credits and then concluding non-notability if the number falls between 4 and 6 is NOT found in any notability guideline in this project. WP:TOOSOON only applies if there are ZERO acting credits. Six satisfies the requirement of WP:NACTOR of multiple significant roles in significant films/TV shows. Abrenica plays lead roles in at least four soap operas in a major national network, TV5, which satisfies the "significant role" part. In terms of WP:GNG, here are a few secondary sources where he is the main subject, satisfying significant coverage: Bandera (Tagalog), Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Entertainment Portal, (more here). The characterization of "mostly reality TV" is false. He was the grand winner of a (singular) Got Talent-type contest, but has since gained notability as an actor. He had never been a child actor.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON only applies if there are ZERO acting credits -- untrue, as an "actor" with zero acting credits would not be likely to long retain an article on Wikipedia as an actor/actress, and would likely be speedily deleted. Quis separabit? 13:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What it says is The guidelines do not mandate that all or even that most of these criteria have to be met... but if an actor cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered, which may be what you were referring to. Quis separabit? 13:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... exactly. Wikipedia:Too soon#To summarize on actors: If an actor cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. What was it you said again? SIX acting roles. Even without anything else, six significant roles already meets the first inclusion criteria of WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON does not apply. Read that page again. In its entirety this time. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've also even realized this. But WP:TOOSOON is not policy. It's an essay on a common indicator of non-notability. What you should really be doing is trying to understand WP:NACTOR, after all these years. Just three little sentences that summarize what notability actually means for the subject of this discussion. Vin Abrenica is an actor.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obsid: "inclusion criteria is greater than (≫) "acting role" and "Significant" can be a subjective adjective. Quis separabit? 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He meets both WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. And yes it can be subjective. But not in this case. He plays the lead male roles in several shows. Either the protagonist, or the main romantic interest. Those qualify as significant roles, yes? The shows are broadcasted in the prime time block to a national audience by a major network. They in turn, are also notable. I've said this to you so many times, I almost have it memorized: WP:NACTOR#1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to beat a dead horse, as some do, but these two links ([23], [24]) are interviews with gossip columnists from reputable Filipino newspapers but do not demonstrate any particular notability, concentrating on his connections to the Arista Academy, his elder brother (also an actor), and his friendship with Mark Neumann, also referencing other Arista alumni (Neumann, Akihiro Blanco, Alberto Bruno, Benjo Leoncio, Brent Manzano, Chris Leonardo, Jon Orlando, Julia Quisumbing, Chanel Morales, Malak So Shdifat, Marvelous Alejo, Nicole Estrada, Stephanie Rowe, Shaira Mae and Sophie Albert), none of whom are notable (note that Alejo is a redirect). I obviously cannot judge Bandera (as it is entirely in Tagalog). This link is about 50% Tagalog. This link is invalid. I still believe Abrenica to be non-notable; possibly a case of TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 13:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused (*pokes at dead horse*). Why exactly does that "not demonstrate notability"? Point me to the exact guideline that explains how you came to that conclusion. The people referenced in the interviews is irrelevant. What matters is that he is the main subject of interviews by independent, reliable sources. That satisfies substantial coverage required in WP:BASIC. I also clearly mentioned that those three are merely examples. There are several pages more of articles on him, both trivial and significant. Including articles that verify his significant roles in several notable TV shows, which again is really all that matters when it comes to actors, per WP:NACTOR. Including these: PEP (Marry You), Manila Standard Today (Beki Boxer), SunStar (Never Say Goodbye), and The Philippine Star (My Fair Lady). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Noting that while the original nominator has withdrawn the request, there is still a consensus amongst the other three participants for "Delete". Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M N Rai

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

KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red X I withdraw my nomination Sources Found KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 10:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION: if the nominator withdraws the nom, do the votes tallied count? Is this AFD over? Just curious. Quis separabit? 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Rms125a@hotmail.com - Nope nom can only withdraw if there's either no !votes or Keep !votes, If there's even one delete !vote it still can't be closed as withdrawn :), Hope that helps :) –Davey2010Talk 23:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep Withdrawn by nominator. Meets WP:POLITICIAN --  Kethrus |talk to me  21:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uğur Işılak

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

Article fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NPOV, and is unreferenced. --  Kethrus |talk to me  00:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KRCB-FM

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

Article fails WP:BCAST, is unreferenced, is not neutral, and is written more like an advertisement - although that could easily be fixed, it still fails WP:BCAST. --  Kethrus |talk to me  00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I removed all of the unsourced content from the page. Created an infobox (the page didn't have one), added sourced information from various reliable sources including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), linked the article with others via market and NPR California templates, and added a current logo for good measure. The article now more than meets WP:BCAST rules and standards, it's neutral, referenced, does not read like an advertisment and meets GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is neither PORNBIO or GNG are satisfied. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juelz Ventura

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

Fails the general notability guidelines along with WP:PORNBIO. Her scene awards do not satisfy the porn guidelines nor is the one music video appearance adequate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had just written: Delete per: Notability of pornographic actors and models. (Which, if it were evenly applied to porn actor/actress articles across Wikipedia, would eliminate a couple thousand less notable than this one.). But the article is maintaining 250-ish views a day. It's clearly notable to some set of Wikipedia readers. Prburley (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't have a couple of thousand porn star articles. At any rate, a house cleaning is in progress and other non-notable porn performers will be gotten to in due course. Finally, page views don't establish notability. Wikipedia is not a web host. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_September_26&oldid=682808825"