Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
adding
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/Swedish Hackers Association}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPAT}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPAT}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lon Safko}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lon Safko}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 23:40, 28 November 2015

< 27 November 29 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Hackers Association

Swedish Hackers Association (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 organization lacking non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPAT

OpenPAT (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 don't see any evidence of reliable source third-party notability for this open-source academic software project. All of the coverage appears to be from primary sources (i.e., authored by the creator of this project). The relatively few (~1k) Google hits don't help the cause either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 12 December 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 08:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Safko

Lon Safko (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 WP:BIO as I'm unable to find any substantial coverage in RS. Specifically, I can't find anything to support the claim that he developed the first voice recognition software and the only recent coverage I can find is passing mentions of him being a social media consultant, but I can't find anything with more detail. SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 01:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:39, 12 December 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. J04n(talk page) 16:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope (Australia band)

AfDs for this article:
Penelope (Australia band) (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 band for which no significant coverage in reliable sources exists to support it. At first glance it appears that reliable governmental sources exist to establish notability, but this is not the case. Ref 1 is a government directory listing which includes promotional. content from a (possibly defunct) www.mono.net blog. Ref 2 and 3 are listings. Ref 4 is a blog. Ref 5 is likely a listing from a playlist but is dead. Ref 6, 7, and 8 are also all listings in directories. My searches past these references were unable to uncover significant coverage of this late 90s rock band therefore it should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Blogs, SPS, Amazon, and then Australian Music Online. The question of notability hinges on whether AMO is considered a reliable, third-party source. It's defunct now, but now integrated into Trove (link). A quick search will confirm that if you had a mate in high-school or uni who played in a band for a few years before becoming a lawyer, his band is probably on there. On the other hand, they did have an album published by an actual (if small and indie) record company. Winning an award might be notable, but it appears that the WAM award is specifically to encourage new and not necessarily notable bands (there is a specific category for published artists, and Penelope were not in this category). On balance, I think the lack of actual independent sources points to non-notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BAND. no notable albums, no major awards, no notable members. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 17 December 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 Bushranger One ping only 11:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daybehavior

AfDs for this article:
Daybehavior (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 band failing WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Went through an AfD before but it lacked sufficient participation to achieve consensus. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cited coverage does seem slightly thinner than expected of a notable topic so relisting for one more !vote.. Esquivalience t 01:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jordan

Liam Jordan (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)

Classic WP:BLP1E. Subject of this BLP is only notable for being found guilty of one charge of criminal damage for which he received a 12 month conditional discharge. Hillbillyholiday talk 22:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick tcs 01:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 01:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 01:48, 6 December 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 general feeling here is that the subject is legitimate, but the article we have now needs improvement. There were some arguments to move this to draft space, but I'd be hard pressed to declare a consensus to do that, so we'll keep it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish mythology

Kurdish mythology (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 entire content of the article is Original Research and just refers to Iranian mythology (see Zahhak, Kāve). The only source used in the article is a book by a journalist, the book is unscholarly, no sources are cited in the book. There is already the Origin of the Kurds and the Kurdish nationalism article, which is more appropriate, or the artcile could be moved to "Kurdish national myth". This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - historic origin and mythology are not the same thing - Kurdish mythology refers to things like Shahmaran. The Kurds are an ancient people, distinct from the Iranians despite many links, and I don't see why their mythology is any less notable than that of other cultures. Sources exist.[1][2][3] —МандичкаYO 😜 07:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing about Shahmaran in the article and Shahmaran is not specifically Kurdish, the folklore is found in many Middle Eastern cultures. Every human being is an "ancient people", but the earliest attested usage of Kurds meaning a concrete ethnic group is only from the medieval period. The Kurds enter the historical record at the end of the medieval period, during the Safavid era. It is not about whether their mythology is any less notable, but about the current content and status of the article, which don't justify to keep the article, also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist mythology is up for deletion. Also those sources you link are either fringe nationalist sources or about current affairs, not scholarly works on mythology. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate/DRAFT/whatever-it's-called-now. This is an almost perfect example of an article which falls under WP:ARSSCOPE. De Guerre (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have these claims in support of the article:

  • Things like Shahmaran could be discussed in the article.
    • But Shahmaran is not currently discussed in the article. And all those things (Shamaran, Zahhak, Kave) happen to be part of Iranian mythology, though it seems that other Middle Eastern cultures in the region, including Kurdish, share this folklore, with slight variations. So far we have no scholarly sources on anything that could be classified as specifically Kurdish mythology. These things should rather be discussed in articles on Middle Eastern mythology, Anatolian mythology or Iranian mythology.
  • The Kurds are an "ancient people" so there must be something. "Sources exist"
    • Ancient people usually refers to Antiquity, with Kurds this makes no sense since they only enter the historical record in the late medieval period. What we need are scholarly sources on Kurdish mythology, which don't seem to exist. We don't even have historical sources for the Kurds prior to the the medieval period. The current status of this article does not merit an article, and it's not likely that scholarly sources will be found. The sources mentioned so far are not scholarly works on mythology, they are fringe nationalist sources or unscholarly works on current affairs.
This article could actually be part of a kurdification strategy of kurdish nationalists to claim Yazidi, Assyrian, Iranian and other cultures as "kurdish mythology". We have already enough articles on national mysticism on wikipedia, we don't need to invent new ones.--Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should point out that the nominator was indef banned two days after this nomination. The matter is currently at is being discussed ANI under the heading at IP-jumping editor with an anti-Kurdish bias. Correction, the nominator claims to be entirely unrelated to the blocked editor who has an almost identical username and that their interest in Kurdish articles in this case is entirely coincidental. I've struck through my comments. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Shawn in Montreal:, your first comment was basically correct. The nominator of this AfD was discussed under said header (now archived) and ended up blocked for impersonating another user. You were confused by the similarity of the user names of the impersonator and impersonatee. --Hegvald (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, what a confusing (to me anyway) little mixup two almost identical names and in such a narrow field of interest. Anyway, more importantly, I've no opinion on the real matter at hand, except that a) Kurds are clearly a distinct ethnic group and b) virtually all such groups have a mythology main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • a) Not so clearly, as the Kurds article says, the Kurds are ethnically very diverse. b) No, there is no article on Yazidi mythology for instance. Many of the mythology articles of even large groups redirect to other articles, like Ancient Mesopotamian religion, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, Folklore of the United States). --Lrednuas Senoroc Temp (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be clear, looking at (quickly blocked) OP's history, that this is a bad faith nomination. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although as I write this, to my surprise, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist mythology has popped up, from a different editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have I accidentally wandered onto the weird part of en:wp? I'm tempted, based on this information, to change my vote to "snow keep", but I still think the article could do with ARS attention. De Guerre (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: May I suggest to some to read WP:AGF again. It is unfortunate that some always have to resort to personal attacks instead of bringing rational arguments for or against the article.
The article could not be so innocent as it appears to outsiders, it could be part of an irredentist strategy of cultural appropriation by kurdish nationalists to claim Yazidi, Assyrian, Iranian and other minority cultures as "kurdish mythology". Examples of this strategy:
  • Some Yazidis expressed concern over forced assimilation into Kurdish culture and identity. Some have accused the Kurdish parties of diverting US $12 million reconstruction funds allocated for Yazidi areas in Jebel Sinjar to a Kurdish village and marginalizing them politically.[7] According to the Human Rights Watch, in 2009, "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".[8]
  • Kurds have annexed Assyrian, Yazidi and Shabak villages which are now under Kurdish Control in North Iraq.[5] In some towns, Assyrian politicians have been replaced with Kurdish ones.
  • Yazidi activists have reported that, since 2003, there have been numerous cases of Yazidi women being abducted and forced to marry members of the Kurdish security force Asayish. A report from Minority Rights Group International.[9]
  • A quote from a lawyer Kuryo Meytap in an interview: "The policy of Kurdification is operated for decades. The Assyrian history is systematically distorted, many Assyrian villages still be kept busy, the names of the Assyrian cities and villages are specifically converted into Kurdish."[13]
  • According to Hunain Qaddo, President of the Iraqi Minorities Council, Shabaks are currently undergoing a process of Kurdification.[14]
  • On 15 August 2005, Shabaks organised a demonstration under the slogan "We are the Shabak, NOT Kurds and NOT Arabs", demanding recognition of their unique ethnic identity.The demonstration came under fire from Kurdistan Democratic Party militia.[15]
  • In 2008, Mr Mirza Ismail, chairman of London Yezidis Community-Canada, accused the Kurdistan Regional Government of forcing Yazidis to register as Kurds, expanding Kurdish settlements in Yazidi regions, and forcing Yazidis out of Sinjar city.[17] --Lrednuas Senoroc Temp (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope you don't mind, I fixed the formatting of your big comment. AGF would also seem to imply not assuming cultural appropriation. I may not have been clear with the "snow keep" comment, so here's the thing: If this is a controversy about nationalistic politics, there is no possible way that we are going to sort it out in AfD. Good on you for being WP:BOLD, but I vote to take this more slowly. Start on the article's talk page. De Guerre (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is still that the article currently is a stub that is very poorly referenced and that no scholarly sources for "kurdish mythology" seem to exist. Google books shows about 10-20 books, none of them are comprehensive and scholarly works on mythology, the most relevant of them (about mythology, not about politics) is a book from Books LLC.
There are no scholarly sources, and the articles on Kurdish folklore, Origin of the Kurds, Kurdish nationalism, Ancient Mesopotamian religion, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, Middle Eastern mythology or Anatolian mythology could be expanded.--Lrednuas Senoroc Temp (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the article definitely needs rewriting and citing, so I'd not oppose Userfy as the decision. I think the topic very probably deserving of an article, which doesn't mean that this sorry piece of uncited WP:OR is it.
David McDowall's A Modern History of the Kurds (I. B. Tauris, 2004) states "Various myths exist concerning Kurdish origins. The myth that the Kurds are descended from children hidden in the mountains to escape Zahhak, a child-eating giant, links them mystically with 'the mountain' and also implies, since the myth refers to children rather than one couple, that they may not all be of one origin. A similar story suggests that they are descended from the children of slave girls of King Solomon, sired by a demon named Jasad, and driven by the angry king into the mountains. Another myth claims the Prophet Abraham's wife Sarah was a Kurd, a native of Harran, and thus validates Kurdish identity within the mainstream of monotheism. There is a danger of outsiders dismissing such myths as worthless; they are valuable tools in nation building, however dubious historically, because they offer a common mystical identity, exclusive to the Kurdish people."
Also of interest is Kurdish Oral Literature (ed. Philip Kreyenbroek, 2010) which tells the story of Kawe the blacksmith connected to Shahname and the myth of Newroz, which I think others have mentioned above. There are thus definitely Kurdish myths to be discussed and cited in the article. On Shahmaran, that the myth is shared by the Kurds is I think sufficient for it to be included in an article on this topic, as long as the sharing is noted.
We have the choice, therefore, of rewriting and citing the article now, of userfying it, or indeed of the WP:TNT option of telling people to start over. Whichever it is, an article should cover the topic, and the current one needs to be replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 13 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie C Rouse

Ronnie C Rouse (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 indication of passing WP:BIO or any of its included lower standards of notability John from Idegon (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 28 November 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) –Davey2010Talk 23:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Albert Merchants

St. Albert Merchants (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 is no indication this lower league ice hockey team comes anywhere close to meeting WP:CORP, as is required for articles about sports teams. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this discussion not surfaced with other articles I have created for similar teams, or for teams of even lower levels? The St. Albert Merchants are multi-time provincial and Western Canada champions, and articles about lesser teams exist across many leagues. Some articles of similar notability but with fewer or no citations, not to mention less importance, include: Junior B:

And other Junior C teams:

These are all articles about much lower level junior hockey teams, with a less time of existence and less success over the years, yet they, and countless others, still exist and are not challenged. I see no reason why the page for the St. Albert Merchants is not notable. ~~Iheartthestrals (talk - contribs) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I'm curious as to how there is no evidence presented in this article that could deem it notable. Surely a team with their established history and success is notable? If they were a recently established team of the same league, say, from 2010, then I might be inclined to agree, but they were founded in 1983, and have won many provincial championships. I see no reason why deletion is necessary. Surely there is no harm done to Wikipedia for having this article? It is also, if I may be so bold, properly sourced, which many articles akin to it are not. However, if the consensus of Wikipedia editors are against me, I shall concede and not return the argument, though I still think the existence of far less notable articles alone makes the page for the Merchants a notable article. Thank you. ~~Iheartthestrals (talk - contribs) 21:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comparing against other articles isn't really a valid argument to make (see WP:WAX), nor is saying that inclusion does not harm (WP:NOHARM). Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams states that sports teams are assessed as any other company and that provides the inclusion requirements. That the team has existed since 1983 and had provincial success does not of itself indicate notability, but if can be shown that those things have attracted sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources then notability requirements probably have been met. I have not seen that such coverage exists, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply curious as to why this article in particular has been nominated for deletion when countless others of lower coverage and notability have remained unchallenged. As for coverage in reliable independent sources, the highest coverage comes from city newspapers in the cities of which the majority of teams in the Capital Junior Hockey League play. I have included some links here from varying sources, hoping it appeases you, but I must make my point that this team receives about as much coverage as any Junior B hockey team. They all mention or discuss the Merchants in some way, some more than others.

I have more if you need them. God bless. ~~Iheartthestrals (talk - contribs) 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara

Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara (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)

PROD by another user that was removed by an IP editor. Unfortunately there no reliable sources to discuss in non-trivial ways the subject of this BLP. Primary sources show only that the person exists, not that they are notable. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Was created by an account that has same last name as subject. The user who created it had a speedy deletion notice for the same page already on his page (which was removed by that account) from 2007 by Pruneau, so a previous version of the page must have been created and deleted at least once before this article. Notice said it was speedy deleted before under criteria for not giving a notable reason to be here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - IPs have been continuously removing the AfD template from the page. Meatsgains (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- only the double relist made me jump in to what seems like a difficult decision with some good arguments on both sides, but ultimately I'll trust Yale's decision to appoint as an Associate Prof and the high citation index (along with the good current state of the article) over its growing pains as an AUTOBIO. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It has been interesting reading the arguments above, as other people are interpreting WP:ACADEMIC much more generously than I have been. I would have expected a requirement for at least a Full Professorship at somewhere like Yale, or a h-index above 30 (or even 40?), or a single paper wth more than 500 (or 1000?) citations. My previous !vote should be interpreted in that context. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment When Yale makes a person an official "Director" of a program, that suggests he is quite above the "minor instructor at Faber College" level, indeed. Collect (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. FWIW, I think the double re-listing in this case was pointless, as the research record/impact is clearly conclusive. The h-index range of 10-15 is debatable (often depending upon research area), but in this case it's 19 or 20, which we always have accepted without argument. For reference, Hirsch's association of h-index and various levels of notability can be gleaned from his original paper: Fellowship in the American Physical Society might occur typically for h ≈ 15–20. Membership in the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America may typically be associated with h ≈ 45 and higher...so I think the above conversation reflects some misunderstanding of notavility vs research impact ;-) Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I understand the Hirsh index (I rejoice in a personal h=32), but does "Fellowship in the American Physical Society" really equate to "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)" per WP:ACADEMIC? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it always has here. WP needs reasonable scientific representation, not just pop stars ;-) cheers, Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 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. joe deckertalk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMedia Productions

EMedia Productions (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 media outlet. Does not meet GNG. Sixth of March 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:47, 28 November 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. J04n(talk page) 16:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan

Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan (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)

A representative of Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan contacted OTRS to ask for deletion of this article (VRTS ticket # 2015112810011271). Despite being a wealthy member of a ruling dynasty, Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan himself does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Information about him is so scarce that we don't even know how he's related to the rest of the dynasty. He's not quite WP:BLP1E but rather 2E, mentioned only for his extensive car collection and some sand writing. I don't think that's enough for us to write a reasonable encyclopedia article about him. Huon (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:BLP2E. Agree article is poorly sourced but search suggests that can be improved. I'm unsure whether this should be kept, deleted or merged/redirected somewhere. Peter James (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (only if likely and needed) but I would perhaps definitely say Delete as I actually found several links using "Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates" at News, Books and browsers but perhaps not considerably enough for a better article especially given its current state. It's worth noting, from looking at the article's history, it has experienced considerable changes and removals, almost changing the comparison to beneficial contributions since it first started in June 2007. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 03:04, 12 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early in the Morning: A Collection of New Poems

Early in the Morning: A Collection of New Poems (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)

Book of childrens' poetry that doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. While the article has a link showing that the book won an asward, there's nothing that convinces me the aware itself is notable, and therefore I don't believe the "award-winning" criteria of WP:NBOOK is met. Mikeblas (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Charles Causley and it may be best to simply delete unless anyone wants this saved for future uses, as my searches simply found nothing better and I'm not currently seeing how this can become a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:19, 19 December 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. joe deckertalk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Raj

Pankaj Raj (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 WP:MUSBIO and non notable musician. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 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. Areas/villages are alwyas kept per GEOLAND (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankutia

Ankutia (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 is no notability. ~ Moheen (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:48, 28 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alveda Music

Alveda Music (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 about a non-notable music group, founded by an individual whose article was deleted for the same reason (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcos Panagiotis). The article is also an unattributed copy of its own site here and was created with a COI tag already in place. Speedy deletion (CSD A7 - notability, CSD G12 - copyvio) was contested by a new user who purports to be the founder himself. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:49, 5 December 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. joe deckertalk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color Junkie: Shade Shifter

Color Junkie: Shade Shifter (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 topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:40, 28 November 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  09:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC) How do we request a deletion review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.178.225 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chos3n

Chos3n (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)

Unnotable musical group. Also, this article was created by the group itself, which has since been indeffed, and therefore this article has conflict of interest issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Upon writing the original article which had absolutely no reference to the 'Chos3n' Band website or promotional or sales information - and having copied the page format for artists of the same achievements wiki format, we felt that this article would suffice given we had been nominated for two major UK music awards.

whilst Wikipedia seems to be comfortable with it's issue with Systemic Bias, ( I note the person most offended by the 'Chos3n'post is in dallas so therefore in probability has little knowledge of the UK Music Scene) - I am not comfortable with it's systemic Bias - could I therefore ask that the editor(s) who have any decision making on the page proposed deletion have some relative knowledge in the music industry outside of the U.S. or other interest in Urban music . I am glad that Wikipedia hires editors such as TheRedPenOfDoom who are a little more studied in Cultural diversity

[[User talk:Chos3n|< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.67.187 (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

81.140.67.187 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. — Jkudlick tcs 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick tcs 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 04:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hard to work out where I stand here; this article in its present form is clearly inadequate, but otoh I strongly agree with The Red Pen of Doom about a broader bias here (c.f. the article about a German-only Marillion 3-track single, which is more than a comparable Loose Ends release would be likely to get and also more than a lot of important songs in German-language pop music get). RobinCarmody (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

either Mobo and Urban music awards are considered major awards or they are not. Criteria for musicians and ensembles: Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Can I suggest that if Mobo or UMA are not Major awards they would not have been allowed a page on your site. (Juliette Farrell - Chos3n) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.67.187 (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 13 December 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.

I would like to request a deletion review, as there has been similar artists listed historically. I believe this is systemic bias due to the editors lack of musical knowledge in this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.67.187 (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Minretumomab (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine (125I) CC49

Iodine (125I) CC49 (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 are tens of thousand radioactively labeled substances in the scientific literature yet there are *very few* wikipedia pages devoted to a single, specific radiolabled substance -- in those cases they fulfill the criterion of notability. There are many thousands of radioiodine-labled substances in the literature but only one page describing a single example -- this page. But this single example does not warrant its own page. The subject of this page completely lacks notability: there is nothing distinguishing this particular substance from all other radioiodine-labled substances; there is nothing distinguishing this reagent from other biomedical reagents, particularly since this was tested and found to have no therapeutic value (Wikipedia cannot be a compendium of every failed substance tested); the work described is over a decade old and does not appear to have led to other significant findings or served as the foundation of other significant finding; and the unlabeled compound (CC49) itself is also lacking in notability such that there is no page for CC49. If there was a CC49 page, then this subject could be moved to that page. But there is a similar lack of notability for CC49 and there no page for that, thus this page about radioiodinated-CC49 should be removed from Wikipedia. Lapabc (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (from creator). At least one independent source in article (Biotherapy, a book). 33 search results on PubMed, so it's used at least experimentally. It's also for sale, although I don't know whether / how frequently it is used in practice. It has got an ATC code (V09IX03 (WHO)), so at the very least the WHO took it seriously as a diagnostic agent at some point. Also, it's not true that this is a failed substance: while it failed as a therapy, it seems to work as a diagnostic agent.
Regarding the "very few" radiolabelled substances covered on WP: See ATC code V09 and ATC code V10 for counterexamples (including quite a few radioiodine compounds). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Merge into Minretumomab. Per this article in Nature, table 2, CC49 (uniodinated) = minretumomab. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The above comment contains incorrect information. Some of the comment involves irrelevant information and some disputed information:
(1.) The subject of this WP page, [125-I]-CC49, is not for sale. The product cited is for a different composition, a generic monoclonal antibody used for immunostaining. There are many thousands of antibodies for sale. The existence of a secondarily related commercial product is not evidence of this item's notability(Wikipedia:Notability). Instead, the lack of a commercial product of this item supports the conclusion of non-notability.
(2) The references on PubMed do not indicate "it's used at least experimentally." The newest reference is over 8 years old indicating it was of interest once upon a time ago. Because there are millions of references on PubMed, the existence of a few reference by itself cannot evidence of notability. In this case, the lack of recent publications actually supports the conclusion of non-notability.
(2a) In fact, there are many more references in PubMed to a closely related [131-I]-CC49 than there are [125-I]-CC49, yet there is no WP page on [131-I]-CC49 and nor should there be. The existence of this old literature is indicative of a dead end. And, similar to the point about old citations on PubMed not by itself being evidence of notability, the existence of a dead end line of research is not evidence of notability either -- there are too many millions of dead ends to be cataloged in Wikipedia, unless a dead end is *particularly* notable. Nothing currently indicates notability for any radioiodinated version of this antibody, nor for the specific [125-I] version of this antibody in the WP page in question.
(3) The commenter cites inclusion on the WHO ATC list, stating "the WHO took it seriously as a diagnostic agent at some point." Perhaps the commenter does not know how the system works but the existence of a composition on that list does not mean it was evaluated or validated in any scientific or biomedical way. To the contrary, the organizers of the ATC/DDD database are not allowed to make a judgement about scientific or medical utility, rather their role is limited to insuring the required paperwork is in order and that it contains the requisite data. Inclusion on the list is driven solely by those who bother to make the effort to submit documentation. These are entities that typically have a vested interest (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), e.g., a pharmaceutical company, although some entities may be impartial academics. The existence of a composition on the ATC/DD list by itself is not evidence of notability.
(4) The commenter's conclusion that "it seems to work as a diagnostic agent" is disputable. There are no [125-I]-CC49 commercial medical diagnostic kits in existence for any medical condition. There are no commercial medical diagnostic kits of the different, unlabeled CC49 antibody for any medical condition. There is no evidence of medical pathology laboratory procedures that currently involve the use of this antibody for diagnosis of any medical condition. It is true that a different, unlabeled antibody is for sale and that antibody can be used for research purposes. But that is not the same thing as being a diagnostic agent.
(5) The commenter is incorrect about "counterexamples" that indicate "quite a few radioiodine compounds." Ironically, the citations support the opposite, original critique that there are very few. Again, there are tens of thousands of radiolabled compositions, and thousands of examples of radiolabled antibodies. Yet the two citations the commenter provides only lists a few dozen. This is evidence of "few," not "many." Those lists contain many irrelevant radioistopes and irrelevant molecules that are labeled. As to the more restricted case of radioiodine, the commenter's list includes only ~9, most of them not [125-I]-labeled but are small molecules or non-relevant proteins labeled with different radioiodine isotopes -- only one is an antibody and it's [131-I]-labeled. Again, out of tens of thousands of RADIOLABLED compositions and out of many thousands of RADIOIODINATED compostions, the commenter's lists are evidence of very few, not many. This, in fact, supports the conclusion of non-notability.Lapabc (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen that I changed from Keep to Merge? For 125I-CC49 to be merged into Minretumomab, it does not have to be notable in itself. Apart,
(1)+(4) Of course the radioiodinated compound is not for sale. Radiolabelling is usually done immediately before usage. That said, you may be right that it isn't (currently) used as a diagnostic agent.
(2) Notability is not temporary: WP:NTEMP. Also, notability is about coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many other substances are covered on PubMed.
(3) I know how ATC works. Again, this is about coverage ("attention") in reliable sources such as WHO's, not about whether it is of scientific or medical utility.
(5) I was refuting your claim about there being "a single example" of a radioiodinated compound. In this context, "quite a few" was meant to mean "more than one". Sorry for not being precise. And again, the number of substances not covered on Wikipedia does not establish non-notability (WP:OTHERSTUFF).
--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After 3 relists there's still no consensus to Keep or Delete. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Jordac

George Jordac (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)

Recently created article about a non-notable author whose only claim to fame seems to be a self-published book. Briefly mentioned by Iranian TV when he died, but still a long way from established notability. A quick Internet search did not yield any further indicators of notability. Jeppiz (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the self-published book, added yesterday by the same user, failing notability :[reply]

The Voice of Human Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jeppiz (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs investigation - the article about the book claims that it is very well known in the Arab-speaking world, with over a million sales. I do not speak Arabic to search for suitable references, but it seems that we should look into the question of notability beyond just English-language references. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, though I think the claimed sales are mainly for Persian, not the Arab-speaking world, if I understand the source right. It sounds surprising, and if it is true, it sounds even more surprising the English translation would be self-published; publishing houses would be likely to jump at the opportunity to give out a translation of a book that has sold that much. So of course it's possible, but something seems strange. Needless to say, we're not in a hurry, and if somebody who speaks Persian finds reliable sources of notability, it would of course change the situation. In English, though, there seems to be next to nothing. Jeppiz (talk) 16:25, 7 November 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) 04:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 28 November 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, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 01:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Doig

Don Doig (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)

Declined speedy on the grounds that he is the founder of a notable organisation; however I doubt if he is independently notable. I would favour a redierect to Fully Informed Jury Association TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I've done a bit of research on Doig. I would easily say that he is notable on various things. He was the co-founder and national coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association. In politics, he is a former candidate for the Montana Libertarian Party. He has published many articles that are cross referenced in the medical field. Also anyone studying judicial law is going to come across him and his work. It should also be noted that he is quoted on many occasions. Collectively on at least 5 different things, four of them discrete from each other, I believe he is notable. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 November 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, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While being a founder of an organization is a claim of notability that might get a person into Wikipedia if it can be well-sourced, it's not a claim of notability that gets a person any automatic inclusion rights just because he exists — and being a non-winning candidate for office counts for nothing under WP:NPOL. And the sourcing here is far too reliant on primary source verification of his existence rather than reliably sourced documentation of his notability — far too many of the "sources" are to the web pages of directly affiliated organizations, and the relatively few references that are appropriately reliable virtually all just passingly namecheck him rather than being about him per se. So he doesn't get to claim WP:GNG either. Redirect to Fully Informed Jury Association per nominator. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fully Informed Jury Association. The organization is notable, its founder apparently not. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'll repeat what I said on the 7th of November. I've done a bit of research on Doig. I would easily say that he is notable on various things. He was the co-founder and national coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association. In politics, he is a former candidate for the Montana Libertarian Party. He has published many articles that are cross referenced in the medical field. Also anyone studying judicial law is going to come across him and his work. It should also be noted that he is quoted on many occasions. Collectively on at least 5 different things, four of them discrete from each other, I believe he is notable. Take them into account. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to vote multiple times in an AFD discussion; you're allowed to comment as many times as you like, but you only get to preface one comment with either a bolded "keep" or a bolded "delete" vote and the rest may only be comments. That part of this comment, accordingly, has been struck out. At any rate, "quoted on many occasions" is not a thing that gets a person into Wikipedia, and being a non-winning candidate for political office is not a thing that gets a person into Wikipedia — and while founding a notable organization can be a thing that gets a person into Wikipedia, that's still dependent on his being the subject of reliable source coverage and does not constitute an automatic "keep because he exists" freebie if the resulting article has to to rely on primary sources and non-substantive namechecks of his mere existence for sourcing. He has to be the subject of substantive coverage of him in reliable sources to get a standalone BLP on here, but the sourcing present in this article doesn't even approach the suburbs of the type of sourcing it takes to get an article. If you want this article to be kept, you'll get a lot farther by actually investing time in fixing the sourcing than you will by simply repasting the same comment in this discussion over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks but I wasn't trying to vote again. Rather I thought that this being the last relist, I wasn't sure if It would be viewed individually so I put it in again. When I mentioned "quoted on many occasions", I meant that in different areas, medical, legal etc, I was trying to give an idea of the different fields he is referred to. There are a few! There are a good deal of secondary and third party sources for Doig. Yes there are more out there. But thanks for the pointer. As for repasting the same comment over and over again. I've only done it once and that's all I ever intended to do as this I the last relist of the discussion. Thanks. I will be expanding the article with what I come across in due course and always aim to improve. Karl Twist (talk) 15:03, 4 December 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. There is a very slight majority for deletion, but nothing approaching a consensus. Even though this is a BLP, Cunard has pointed out that the subject received significant coverage in the cited news article, and that sort of evidence weighs heavily in AFD discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Mo

Jay Mo (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)

Only two reliable sources. Other than that not notable. The Avengers 16:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  01:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the sources in the article, here is another source about the subject:
    • Twum, Chris (2013-11-15). "Jay Mo Picks Up African Oscar". The Ghanaian Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2015-12-20. Retrieved 2015-12-20.

      The article notes:

      As well as England, Mohan also grew up in Liberia, Nigeria, Ghana and India, before relocating to Los Angeles in 2010 to pursue a career in the film industry.

      In the last 12 months, he has collaborated with, and promoted various music artistes, and has now directed and produced over 100 music videos, 40 shorts and documentaries, seven commercials, and one TV pilot.

      Fresh from his African Oscars success, the musician and film maker has seen his debut short film, ‘The Successor of Katunga’ winning rave reviews on the independent film and festival circuits.

    Cunard (talk) 07:35, 20 December 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. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Roig

Juan Roig (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 no need to have article of every person mentioned in Forbes. Musa Talk  16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable as a billionaire, employer of 74,000 people, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid reason given for deletion. And why are some editors so seemingly reluctant to familiarise themselves with WP:BEFORE? Edwardx (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BEFORE applies here. (I see he has articles in two other Wikis as well) Philafrenzy (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let's make sure more information & sources are added, such as profiles in El Pais [23] and El Mundo [24], for English readers a Bloomberg report [25], and main subject of two books: Manuel Mira (2 April 2013). Juan Roig: De cómo Mercadona devino en imperio. La Esfera de los Libros. ISBN 978-84-9970-830-0. and Javier Alfonso (10 April 2014). Historia de un éxito: Mercadona: Las claves del triunfo de Juan Roig. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial España. ISBN 978-84-16029-10-5.: Noyster (talk), 18:36, 28 November 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. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Roig

Fernando Roig (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 need of biography of every billionaire of the world. Musa Talk  16:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:01, 28 November 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) –Davey2010Talk 03:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ECW FTW Heavyweight Championship

ECW FTW Heavyweight Championship (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 wrestling championship RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  15:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  15:57, 28 November 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 Deleted as G11 (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moonview sanctuary

Moonview sanctuary (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)

Unreferenced, looks like advertisement, fails WP:N. Musa Talk  15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  15:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess

From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess (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 book. Seven pages of Google hits found lots of publisher and Goodreads hits, but nothing reliable or substantial. The best hits are a sentence in USA Today, a mention in EW, and some mention in an interview with Cosmopolitan. I found no reviews, no discussion, nothing of the kind that makes books notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the first book in a new series for middle-grade readers, a spin-off of the author's wildly popular young adult series. This does not need to be reviewed like a piece of literature. It is reviewed in Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and it and the new series were discussed in the New York Times ArtBeat. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, another book which easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. In addition to the reviews mentioned by StarryGrandma above I also found these (note to Drmies, I googled 'From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess meg cabot reviews' and got these in the 1st 4 pages (40 ghits): [26] - Commonsense media - "Cabot's tale of a mixed-race princess and bullying classmates adds punch and relevancy to the Princess Diaries series.", [27] - Natrona County Public Library - "What I love about the books is that Grandmere isn’t Julie Andrews in the books. She is not afraid to speak her mind.", [28] - Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - extract of review. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • StarryGrandma, that books for middle schoolers should have different, lower standards for notability is an unacceptable proposition; even if it didn't run counter to common sense, it is in no way sanctioned by Wikipedia:Notability (books). Saying that "the book [was] discussed in the New York Times ArtBeat" is a half-truth at best: all it had to say on the topic was "...From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess, a new middle grade series, in which young readers will be shown Mia’s fictional country, Genovia, through the illustrated diary of Olivia Grace, Mia’s long lost, 12-year old, biracial half sister". That's it. If you have any reviews that actually discuss the book, not just mention it (and then go on to talk about the more exciting other book, speculating on whether some princess will lose her cherry in the ballroom--this is what the reviewers were interested in), I'd love to see them.

      Coolabahapple, nothing is easily met here. A one-paragraph review in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, that's something, sure, but that's it. I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made--and making selections is the essence of matter. (Noteworthy books get real reviews.) Likewise, a review by a librarian for a local library, that's not a review in a reliable source that adds notability to a book.

      No, with the review from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books we have one review, albeit a very short one, which counts towards notability. All other sources that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, here we go again.... WP:NBOOK - 1. "1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." and the first 3 footnotes (as we 'keepers' have not mentioned any bestseller lists) - "1. The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. 2. "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. 3. Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and the Bulletin of CCB are all independent of the work and have provided non-trivial ie. not mere mentions reliable reviews of the book. Which makes hmmmm, 5 reviews of the book. As for the put down generalization about the review by Commonsense Media - "I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made" - going to its website [29] I see they have about 4,000 reviews, hardly every children's book (not even the number published every year?). As for the librarian's review, rather then another generalization, can someone please specify why it is not reliable (possibly lack of editorial oversight?). thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as for the statement that "All other sources (ie. Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist) that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources.", can someone please provide links to discussions that back this statement up? I have gone through the archived talkpage discussions of WP:NBOOKS and have been unable to find this, and have looked through previous afds and it appears that the general consensus (with some dissension:)) is that they are reliable and can be used to attain notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misreading my comment. I'm talking about the sources that have been shown to exist. No bibliographical information is given for Kirkus etc. You don't have to cite NBOOK for me, by the way (I've been here long enough), but thanks for the sigh. Now, if you were to produce these reviews and stick them in the article and use them to verify actual information about the book, that would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here are internet pages that show the reviews - kirkus[30], PW[31], BookList and SLJ[32], as the nominator of this afd and a more experienced editor, I invite you to incorporate them into the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I didn't say children's books didn't need to be notable. I was talking about how and where they are reviewed, not whether or not there are sources. This is popular culture, along the lines of Romance novels and Pokemon, not great literature. The book will not win a Newbery Medal. It has been reviewed by the organizations that influence bookstore buyers and children's librarians. I added the New York Times source because I was surprised that the Times was even paying attention. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've cleaned up the article and moved all of the reviews down to a reception section. There should be enough sourcing to show notability as a whole, although I will say that the reviews are mostly short trade-style reviews. Now as far as the notability argument goes for children's series, both parties have valid points. Children's books as a whole tend to get ignored by many mainstream RS other than trade reviews. I could probably venture some guesses as to why this is, but that'd be OR and a bit besides the point - the point is that coverage for these books are usually extremely light. It's fairly common for a series to be present in hundreds of libraries, be sold in multiple stores nationwide, and even have fan followings, yet still fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Ideally we would be able to take all of this into consideration when it comes to series/books that have a smaller amount of coverage (ie, a brief mention here and there and/or only 1-2 trade reviews), but unfortunately there have been enough people that have abused the system to where the guidelines have become necessarily strict. We do need some sort of guideline that would help keep the ones that do appear to be notable (200+ library holdings, sold in bookstores across the nation, have 1-2 reviews or other type of coverage in RS, published or reprinted through a mainstream publisher over a long period of time) and delete the ones that aren't (self-published, 0-5 library holdings, predominantly or solely sold online). Finding a way that would succinctly sum this up without leaving anything to be easily abused is pretty difficult and it's hard to get things passed at NBOOK because of this. However this is kind of a moot point since we have seven reviews (one of which is via Kirkus, which is of dubious reliability nowadays) and while they're brief, there's no consensus at this point in time that short reviews are unusable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 29 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 4K monitors, TVs and projectors

List of 4K monitors, TVs and projectors (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 list is uselessly outdated, it cannot be reasonably updated because then it would fail WP:Notability as this tech is becoming way too common. Most of the displays listed here are the very earliest ones that cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. This sort of list is appropriate for a tech in its nascence only. A mention of a few of the notable firsts could be made. B137 (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:This same kind of list but for 8K resolution devices may be appropriate. More modest 4K devices have dropped comfortably below the $500 point, 4K make up at least have the TVs in Best Buy and similar stores these days. Just for history's sake, this page could be moved to the 8K title, as they are extraordinary and somewhat notable at this point. Currently this is the list of very limited 8K displays, cameras as well are thus far largely prototypical and discussed earlier in the article. B137 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A week of no activity and I may opt for the move option, to preserve the history of early 4K devices during the time they were notable but massively redoing the article of course to cover 8K, perhaps with a section talking about the similar production history of 4K from ~2010-2013. In 2014 and 2015 they broke through the $1000 and $500 barriers, respectively. B137 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Black Friday sales just announced 4K TVs 60" plus will be going for under $1000, that is as cheap as regular 1080p TVs, and these aren't grey market knockoffs. Early adopters of 4K have got to be kicking themselves in the head. Though I think the list should be moved to 8K, that is still especial tech, and I think the article should be geared more high-end and commercial. And there actually is one area where 4K has been the slowest, ironically with projectors, which are capable to be the largest displays by far, and it has left retailers to bash 4K since there are only about five 4K projectors to market for the past two years, and they are still generally five figures. It has the implication that the projection market is dying despite some significant advantages, due to the convenience of an all-in-one panel. B137 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of 4K monitors, TVs and projectors is a useful addition to the primary article which references it, 4K resolution. The list was split off from (out of) the 4K resolution article. This list grew organically in 4K resolution as more displays became available and multiple people added each particular monitor which they had seen, or were interested in. In my opinion, it is easier to have a list such as this rather than trying to have only a few examples in an article (people will continuously add the particular device they are interested in to any such list; trying to keep it pruned generates conflicts between editors and is considerably more work than having the list). At the time it was split off, it was clear the list was growing large enough such that it was distracting from the content of "4K resolution". As described in WP:SPLITLIST, the list was split off into its own set index article. The List of 4K video recording devices was also split out of the "4K resolution" article at the same time.
8K devices:
The argument that 8K devices have become where the technology curve is peaking at this time is not a valid argument that a list of 4K devices should be deleted. It is an argument that a list of 8K devices may be appropriate at some time. However, my opinion is that the list of such devices in the 8K_resolution article has not yet grown to the size which would justify splitting it off from that article. In the future, it almost certainly will grow to the point where splitting the list of 8K devices into one, or more, set index articles will be appropriate.
Outdated:
The list being outdated is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a valid reason for editing the list and updating it. To quote DGG from an AfD discussion on very similar list of technology which has moved to be more common (mobile phones with WVGA display): "Outdated is irrelevant to notability . WP is an encyclopedia, and keeps historical information. This was of key importance a few years ago, and we should keep the record."
— Makyen (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. outdated is a reason for updating, not deletion. We have many such lists of notable types of product. Whether the list should be divided is a question to be decided on the talk page, not here. I note that the need for information for customers on Black Friday is irrelevant to whether we should keep this list. We're not a consumer's guide--if we were, we would keep only current models. We're an encyclopedia, and a permanent record. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While 4K televisions are a notable product category, what makes this list notable? There's no indication that any of the individual models are notable, nor is there any claim that the list itself is notable, nor is this an effective navigational aid. This is simple a (formerly exhaustive) directory of consumer products. Pburka (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me point out that two years ago the number of devices was at 150, that was right before the prices started bombing. http://bgr.com/2014/01/06/ultra-hd-tv-announcements-ces-2014/ I couldn't find a more recent number for total devices but I think that itself suffices to say they are numerous and insignificant enough to no longer tally. My guess is that it is well into the thousands now between all the tvs and computer monitors and even cell phone cameras that now do 4k. Right now the "list" probably has about 15% of applicable devices. B137 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, it is a relic with totally out of date prices. Also, I should say the reason why I think that lists LIKE this one are very useful content. I have come across this list many times in search of a hard-to-find combination of factors: 4k, displayport, and a reasonable price tag. Lists like this one, when up to date and espeically when comparing rare/new products are very useful to Wikipedia's audience, and for one, I'd miss them. I second the comment about the list of 8k devices being more appropriate now, but bemoan the fact that no manufacturer has made a display that can serve equally well as a TV and a PC monitor :D. Faddat (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 12:14, 6 December 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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Experteer

Experteer (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 references are mere notices, or promotional, inclusion in a list of other such firms or applications. . The firm is not notable DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem DGG I would normally remove and fix your mistakes but....were you aware you're the nominator here? SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Thanks, SwisterTwister, there are just so many of them .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Heinemann, Gerrit (2010). Web-Exzellenz im E-Commerce: Innovation und Transformation im Handel (in German). Wiesbaden: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 221–227. ISBN 3834917540. Retrieved 2015-11-09.

      Chapter 3 of the book beginning page 221 is titled: "Case Study: Experteer GmbH, München".

      That a book published by the reliable publisher Springer Science+Business Media has covered the company in substantial detail in a case study is enough to establish notability.

    2. Dannhäuser, Ralph (2014). Praxishandbuch Social Media Recruiting: Experten Know-How / Praxistipps / Rechtshinweise (in German). Wiesbaden: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 393–394. ISBN 3658065737. Retrieved 2015-11-09.

      The book provides several paragraphs of coverage about Experteer.

    3. Bongardt, Dirk (2015-04-15). "8 Apps für die Jobsuche". PC World (in German). Archived from the original on 2015-12-09. Retrieved 2015-12-09.

      The article notes:

      Mit Hilfe der Android-App „ Jobs finden, Karriere machen “ lässt sich gezielt nach Jobs jenseits der 60.000-Euro-Gehaltsgrenze suchen.

      Unter dem Namen „Experteer“ findet sich die Android-App „Jobs finden, Karriere machen“ nach der Installation auf dem Android-Gerät wieder. Experteer versteht sich als Karriereplattform für „Deutschlands beste Köpfe“ und listet nur Jobs, die mit mindestens 60.000 Euro dotiert sind. Die App bietet einen einfachen Zugang zu dieser Plattform, sofern der Nutzer bereit ist, sich zu registrieren. Allerdings sind viele der Jobangebote nur für Premium-Nutzer zugänglich. Die zahlen für ihre Mitgliedschaft je nach Vertragsdauer zwischen 9,90 und 29,90 Euro im Monat.

      Nützliche Vor-Filterung

      Anders als die üblichen Jobbörsen lässt sich die Experteer-Plattform vorwiegend über Filtereinstellungen durchsuchen, die der Nutzer über die Schaltflächen „Branche“, „Funktionsbereich“, „Karrierelevel“ und „Ort“ definiert. Außerdem kann er auf einer Von-Bis-Skala seine Gehaltsvorstellung vorgeben. Ein Filter-Set lässt sich als „Suchagent“ speichern, die Jobsuche kann dann jederzeit wiederholt werden. Wer aktiv für sich werben möchte, kann über die App zusätzlich ein Profil anlegen, in dem er Angaben zu seiner Berufserfahrung und seinen Kenntnissen macht. Nach Experteer-Angaben greifen rund 10.000 Headhunter auf diese Profile zu. Das Design ist ansprechend und funktionell, die Handhabung intuitiv.

      The Google Translate of the article:

      Using the Android app "find jobs, make a career" can search specifically for jobs beyond the 60,000-euro-content limit.

      Under the name of "Experteer" there is the Android app "find jobs, make a career" after installing on the Android device again. Experteer sees itself as a career platform for "Germany's best minds" and lists only jobs that are doped with at least 60,000 euros. The app provides an easy access to this platform, provided that the user is ready to register. However, many of the jobs are only available to premium users. The pay for their membership depending on contract term 9.90 to 29.90 euros a month.

      Useful pre-filtering

      Unlike the usual job boards, the Experteer platform can be searched mainly on filter settings that the user defines via the "industry", "functional area", "career level" and "place". He can pretend to a from-to scale his salary. A filter set can be saved as "search agent", the job search process can then be repeated anytime. Those who want to actively promote themselves, can also create a profile, in which he gives details about his professional experience and his knowledge of the app. After Experteer information access about 10,000 headhunters to these profiles. The design is appealing and functional, intuitive handling.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Experteer to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete and salted per SwisterTwister Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apps Associates

Apps Associates (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 created by single-purpose account with probable COI. Subject does not appear to be notable - zero Google Scholar results, Google Search results mainly social media, PR pieces, and otherwise non-RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Citobun (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  15:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  15:25, 28 November 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. After addition of more sources, keep appears to be in order. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TVShow Time

TVShow Time (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 references are almost entirely from its own site--not notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully we can get some comments from folks who understand French, as I can't evaluate the French sources. Onel5969 TT me 14:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Independent reliable coverage:
--Sbwoodside (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "TVShow Time, l'appli française qui change la façon de regarder les séries télé". Le Huffington Post. 15 July 2015.
  2. ^ "TvShow Time: come Netflix, ma più economica e con i torrent". Wired. 25 November 2014.
  3. ^ "TVShow Time Releases Sleek New App For Its Community Of TV Addicts". TechCrunch. AOL. 15 July 2015.
  4. ^ "TVShow Time Lets You Stream All Your Favorite TV Shows Thanks To Put.io". TechCrunch. AOL. 3 March 2014.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Broad consensus here that the sources presented are insufficient to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo Sogunro

AfDs for this article:
Ayo Sogunro (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)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. It was nominated for deletion in October 2013 and the debate was closed as "No consensus" but I don't see how the author met WP:NAUTHOR#3. Majority of the sources in the article and the ones are found through WP:BEFORE are unreliable and self-published. Being invited to speak in local events is not an evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per criteria cited by Wikicology. Because he writes articles for notable newspapers or through his personal blog does not make him notable. A paragraph reads thus: "Since 2013, Ayo Sogunro has been listed consecutively as one of the 100 most influential Nigerians on Twitter.", when did Twitter become an award entity? --—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not enough to establish the subject's notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the person seems to attract quite a lot of opposition. - Takeaway (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It has been more than a year since this article was first nominated for deletion, and nothing has improved/changed. I still feel that the notability of the subject is in question because of the lack of extensive coverage. If someone can provide me references that discusses the subject in significant detail, I won't hesitate to change my views. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Versace's opinion. The fact that the subject of the article is controversial does not make him notable. It does seem that there could be a source that confirms notability for the subject, its just not in the article yet. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:34, 6 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Ayaana

Alexis Ayaana (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 on a young singer. I have looked at the sources already provided, and I have searched for more among the many actual Ghits she gets. So far I have not been able to find reliable, secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guideline for people. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 5 December 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. joe deckertalk 03:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yunmai Technology

Yunmai Technology (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)

Classic A7. Has been created and speedied at least once before already. Created in the first person as spam (still has the sentence "we also provide..."). Only sources are primary, i.e. the subject's own website. The other "sources" are only describing OCR technology and don't establish notability for the company. Thought about speedy again but since some work has been attempted, a discussion might find a more powerful consensus. Recommend salting as well if deleted. William Thweatt TalkContribs 12:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:59, 28 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American University of Asia

American University of Asia (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)

Reason: mysterious article - even location is not mentioned —Loginnigol (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've gone ahead and speedied it on that basis, too. It's a something somewhere that serves as a board of trustee member somewhere else, except that individuals sit on boards, not organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly, I've found at least one academic who claims to have worked at the American University in Asia in Sri Lanka. But I can't find anything else about it, so assume it was a short-lived effort (if it existed at all). JMWt (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problems in the article noted by the nominator seem to have been introduced during some surprisingly incompetent cleanup by a long-standing editor who, however, is not currently editing Wikipedia. Participants are advised to look at this version, which precedes the botched but largely justifiable cleanup - but whose rather different problems could probably themselves have justified being brought here. (Note that the Institute of Technological Studies, mentioned in that version, has its own Wikipedia article which, however, does not mention the American University of Asia.) PWilkinson (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found some old articles from Sri Lankan media which suggest there was a problem with acceptance of qualifications awarded by the American University of Asia in Sri Lanka (in the sense that they were not accepted abroad) - the campus in Shajah seems to now be the American_University_of_Sharjah and there is an American College of Sri Lanka - although those could just be a similarly named institutions. I've not been able to establish with any secondary sources that the American University of Asia currently exists. JMWt (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can find better secondary sources, I'm going to say delete on that basis. The page certainly does not seem to serve any real purpose as it is and there is no prospect of improvement without access to secondary sources. JMWt (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First Stable Version HERE from 2006 indicates that this entity is not a University at all, but "serves as a board of trustees" for two other educational establishments in other countries. No location mentioned. Let's just call this a big GNG failure and move along. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by Ponyo.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tele 5 (Latvia)

Tele 5 (Latvia) (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)

Page content is almost the same as in Tele 5 (Poland). Can't find any evidance, that there is such station in Latvia. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:49, 5 December 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) clpo13(talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Comeau

Phil Comeau (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)

Tagged for CSD G11, however the awards section suggests that there may be just enough notability here to let the article stay - with a major rewrite. Before we get there though we need to determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I've worked a bit on this article in the past and I can see why someone might have tagged it G11. However, among his awards, he's a member of the Order of Canada. It's the highest Canadian honour for civilian achievements (you wouldn't known it from its article, which is saddled with the usual monarchal crap from a certain editor) and his Ordre des Arts et des Lettres from France is a pretty big one, too. Last but not least, the speedy nominator's "searches found nothing better" is baffling. A Gnews search for "Phil Comeau" yields good results: check it out. You've got to be able to read French, to be sure. He's a major Acadian filmmaker, whatever the problems with the article's tone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's definitely some improvement needed here for both referencing and tone, I won't argue with that, but there's definitely notability there in principle — being named to the Order of Canada definitely counts toward notability, and there's notable film and television work in here. And I just did a ProQuest search, and did find some suitable articles to fix the referencing with there as well. Keep; I'll put some effort into cleaning it up. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 28 November 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ansh666 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yngve Kalin

Yngve Kalin (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)

Does not seem to have done anything notable. A quick Google search does not turn up anything obvious. The article is totally unsourced. Fails WP:GNG Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied by the article now, and am convinced that it passes WP:GNG. I withdraw the nomination. Thanks to Chiswick Chap for their work. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) The article is not unsourced, there are 3 links at the bottom. 2) Not done anything notable: he is correctly stated to be the author of the (controversial) Priest's Declaration (against homosexual partnerships) of 2005, as well as a leading traditionalist and chair of a Swedish national church organization. 3) He received coverage in Swedish national newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet as well as church sources. 4) Notability depends on external sources, not on how well or badly an article is documented with such sources. In this case Nom failed even to notice the sources listed in the article, let alone look for others, most of which are in Swedish. The general point is that it is essential before nominating to see whether the topic can be sourced; it is not enough to assume that a poorly-sourced article is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I nominated the article, there were zero sources. What you refer to as "three sources" are actually external links, mostly associated with the subject itself. I am well aware that sourcing may be available on non-English speaking newspapers but I found nothing in a "quick" (emphasis on "quick") Google search. If the Priest's Declaration was covered widely in Swedish newspapers and commented on by politicians by all means provide such evidence and add it to the article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment at Wikiproject Sweden regarding this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your admirably civil reply. I have added 11 representative sources (there are more) to the article, but I must emphasize that this is not a necessary part of defending the article, nor of AfD policy in general. Your reply, I am sorry to say, betrays a misunderstanding of the AfD process. External links are indeed sources, and they did to a degree support the claims made in the article; I can confirm that they made finding other sources easy and quick. On foreign sources, English Wikipedia is worldwide and there is no prejudice in favour of sources written in English, though there are some here. Finally, I repeat (in the unlikely event that any other editors who think that "sourced" means "with little numbers already in the article" are reading this) that notability depends on the existence of sources, not whether editors have bothered to add them to an article, or indeed to place them inline as is convenient for everybody. Due diligence is required before going to AfD; this may mean consulting with Swedish speakers to find out whether a subject is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 28 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infogrid Pacific

Infogrid Pacific (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 appear to be notable, and looks to be borderline promotional. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:54, 5 December 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Sports Promotion Society

International Sports Promotion Society (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)

Allegedly G11, but I think it could be salvaged...after we determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foxes foursome and new naming sponsor for Open". Queenstown, New Zealand: Mountain Scene. November 12, 2015. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
  • "公益財団法人東京都体育協会加盟競技団体等一覧表" (PDF) (in Japanese). Tokyo. 2013-03-01. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
  • "続・アカスリ半田劇場3" [Zoku Akasuri Handa Theater 3]. Sports Nippon (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). August 13, 2014.
  • "Olympics-Father of blind golf pushing for Paralympic place". Reuters. 2012-06-29. Retrieved 2014-06-14.
  • "続・アカスリ半田劇場2" [Zoku Akasuri Handa Theater 2]. Sports Nippon (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 20, 2014.
  • "16カ国参加スポーツ平和サミット開幕" [World Sports Values Summit for Peace Opens - Participants from 16 Nations]. Daily Sports (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 19, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
  • "スポーツ平和サミット東京大会が開催-ｽﾎﾟｰﾂの力は無限大" 公益社団法人　日本プロゴルフ協会 [World Sports Values Summit for Peace in Tokyo is Held – The Power of Sports is Infinite]. PGA News (in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan: Professional Golfers’Association of Japan. July 19, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
  • "Mpumalanga Black Aces proud of ISPS kit deal". Kick Off. July 31, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
  • "ポールターにマスターズ覇者も! ISPSハンダグローバルカップ記者発表会開催" [ISPS Handa Global Cup of the press conference held]. ALBA (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 1, 2015. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
  • "ISPS Handa and LET sign new agreement". Golf Monthly (Time Inc. (UK) Ltd.). December 1, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
  • "ISPS HANDA becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf". PGA European Tour. September 11, 2013.
  • "ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに" [ISPS Handa becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf]. ParGolf (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan: Pargolf & Company). September 11, 2013.
  • "ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに" [ISPS Handa becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf]. Golf Digest (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). September 11, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
  • "ISPS HANDA becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf 2013". Sankei Sports (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). September 12, 2013.
There is no obvious evidence that the above listed sources do not meet the criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. ISPS has launched ISPS Handa Global Cup, one of the highest-rated tournament in Japan, and also organizes ISPS Handa World Cup of Golf, one of the most renowned golf event in the world. Since Infinite0694-san and Takabeg-san are Japanese users who seem not to know a lot about golf, they have disregarded independent, reliable third-party evaluation sources such as golf magazines. Husa-san is a Japanese user who is quite knowledgeable of golf and disabled golf (blind golf). Additionally, Google search will provide more news such as [33]. I understand the original reason for the request of delete was the advertising description uploaded by two supporters, User talk: IMGGolf15 and User talk:143.223.9.249. Now that, however, the great majority of such advertising description has already been deleted, resulting in being encyclopedic enough to be kept. In view of the fact that the original reason for delete has already disappeared, there cannot be seen any necessity to continue the consideration. 創造院 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources overall fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Sponsorship deal announcements are generally trivial coverage, and there is absolutely no coverage of ISPS Handa outside the context of these sponsorship deals. The only reason I voted for Keep is a number of reputable sources do give single-paragraph background on ISPS Handa, but the need for such points to the utter lack of WP:RS in other sources. The entire article was written with a heavy WP:PROMOTION slant and without serious revision to the article. I expect it to remain eligible for another AfD nomination. Jun Kayama 16:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick tcs 02:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. No reason for deletion. Deletion should be a last resort! There cannot be seen any advertising or other spam in the article, which has many independent, reliable and third-party sources such as Reuters[34], Kick Off, Japanese newspaper, and so on. Its contents are entirely encyclopedic. ぽてから (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first so-called in-depth source from the above list that I picked to look at (ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに of 2013/09/11) was a short, possibly slightly rewritten, Press Release from ISPS. The second one ("スポーツ平和サミット東京大会が開催-ｽﾎﾟｰﾂの力は無限大") was a short report on a ISPS sponsored conference, with no coverage of ISPS. These sorts of articles do not meet the in-depth coverage standards of WP:ORG. Undoubtedly the Japanese Wikipedia has their own distinct standards. --Bejnar (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Japan may repeatedly demonstrate rock bottom standards in the use of citations, but in this particular case ISPS Handa is covered by the Daily Telegraph [35], Boston Herald [36], the PGA [37], and the LPGA [38]. There is a European Tour article which actually references Haruhisa Handa by name and provides a short biography as well [39]. The article edges towards WP:PROMO but there is enough in the way of WP:RS to justify its continued existence. Jun Kayama 05:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources you just mentioned do not cover the ISPS, they mention it in passing since it sponsored the sporting event that is being covered. --Bejnar (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With reservations. [40] and [41] both cover achievements. It's not just pure sponsorship mentioned but canvassing for the Paralympics and activism for disabled golfers. There is barely enough for WP:ORGDEPTH but it is there. Haruhisa Handa certainly does not get a pass on WP:BIO for his non-golf related philanthropy, the majority of the sources listed by 創造院 are subpar, and the quality of the article leaves much to be desired (Husa left reference to a blond medal in the text, which is atrocious) but with a lot of elbow grease this article can be fixed. Jun Kayama 07:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After going through the article with a blowtorch and removing the more outrageous nonsense (i.e. Premia League and dubious claims) I am convinced that this article was generated with WP:PROMOTION in mind. However there's enough mention in WP:RS to give it a chance at life provided the more over-the-top laudatory nonsense is excised (Japanese editors: What makes sense to you in Japanese text is often nonsensical in English, especially when you fail utterly to provide WP:RS). If this AfD is relisted and this article doesn't undergo substantive improvement in quality, I'm voting for Deletion. Jun Kayama 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. clpo13(talk) 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 18:30, 20 December 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. kelapstick(bainuu) 02:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Infotech

ITC Infotech (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 article's been csd-deleted a total of 7 times and keeps coming back, so I'm listing it here for community input and if it leans toward delete (again) I'd be of the mind to WP:SALT it to keep it red. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm seeing some odd behavior here. The article seems to have been created by a "farm" of SPAs. The initial author has also created Altimetrik, another corporation that doesn't seem to meet wp:corp, and SoftSol, also very poorly referenced. In any case, This looks like paid editor activity, but the customers are not getting their money's worth. This article is primarily referenced to PR sites, and does not meet criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keon-A Information Technology Co. Ltd

Keon-A Information Technology Co. Ltd (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)

Borderline notability and major promotional issues, but the parts are there and this could be salvaged...maybe. First, though, the community has its say on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:09, 5 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar Mustafa

Bahar Mustafa (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)

Almost all coverage about her relates to the BME only student union event she organised and subsequent fall out. The recent story about a likely spoofed email to Pamela Geller has had minimal reliable source coverage. [42]. The article used Breitbart and Huffpo Young Voices as sources for this controversy. General consensus is that Breitbart is not reliable. Huffpo Young Voices, seems to be a blogging platform for student writers and is described as a blog on its twitter account.[43] Brustopher (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 28 November 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. No discussion since the third relist. Keep and delete !votes bring up good points, but there's no clear consensus at this time. Past two relisters appear to agree that the discussion was verging on no consensus before relisting and consensus has not developed since. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 16:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helion Venture Partners

AfDs for this article:
Helion Venture Partners (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 evidence of notability. A list of a companies investments is not an encycopedia article. The references, as would be expected,are mere notices about those investments, not substantial sources about the firm. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I believe there are enough RS. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Russell, Jon (2015-04-16). "Helion Venture Partners Raises New $300M Fund For Startups In India". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

      The article notes:

      There’s another new startup fountain in town in India, after Helion Venture Partners announced its fourth fund worth $300 million.

      Helion is the latest in a flurry of firms to raise money for investments in fast-growing India. ...

      With its new fund, Helion — which includes Housing.com, TaxiForSure, and Komli among its portfolio — is again targeting early to mid stage tech startups in India. Typical investments will range from $1 million to $10 million, and the fund is expected to last for three to four years, according to Helion co-founder Sanjeev Aggarwal.

      ...

      Helion, which was founded in 2009, will put around three-quarters of the fund towards startups that are helping digitize the national economy, for example those involved in retail, travel, insurance and, loans, Aggarwal said. The remainder will be set aside for Indian companies with the potential to do business globally, for example analytics, enterprise software and other “next generation outsourcing businesses.”

    2. KJ, Shashidhar (2015-04-23). "Helion Venture Partners raises $300 mn to invest in early, mid startups in India". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

      The article notes:

      Helion’s recent investments

      – In February Helion invested Rs 30 crore Hyper local products discovery platform Wooplr. The funds will be used for hiring and expanding Wooplr’s presence in the country.

      – Helion also participated in a $100 million funding round for e-commerce site ShopClues in January. In March 2013, ShopClues had raised $10 million from Helion Venture Partners, Nexus Partners and Netprice.com CEO Teruhide Sato

      – Personalised home furnishings provider Livspace raised $4.6 million in a series A round of funding led by Helion Venture Partners and Bessemer Venture Partners in December 2014.

      – In September 2014, Bangalore-based online grocery retailer BigBasket has raised Rs 200 crore investment in a round led by Helion Ventures and Zodius Capital and participation from existing investors Ascent Capital and LionRock Capital.

      – Online recruitment platform TalentPad in October raised an undisclosed amount of investment from Helion Ventures.

    3. Gupta, Bhawna (2015-04-17). "Helion on road to raise $300M in tech-focused VC fund; to back up to 25 Indian startups". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

      The article notes:

      Helion Venture Partners, an early-to-mid-stage venture capital firm, is raising $300 million (Rs 1,900 crore) for its fourth fund Helion Venture Fund IV, a company spokesperson told VCCircle.

      The VC firm is still on the road to raise funds and is in talks with both new and existing offshore investors. The average ticket size of the investment from the new fund will be in the $1-10 million bracket, much like its previous funds.

      It expects to back 20-25 companies from the new fund and will focus on technology and tech-powered firms only. In the past, the firm has backed a few non-tech consumer services firms such as salon chain YLG and restaurant chain Mast Kalandar.

      ...

      Founded in 2006, the VC firm currently manages $605 million across three funds. It has backed names like MakeMyTrip, Pubmatic, TaxiForSure and RedBus, some of which it has exited.

      The firm is currently led by two senior managing directors Ashish Gupta and Sanjeev Aggarwal. Last year another co-founder and senior managing director Kanwaljit Singh had quit the firm.

    4. Narasimhan, T E (2015-01-15). "Helion Venture Partners to float fourth fund". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

      The article notes:

      Helion had launched its first fund, of $140 million, in 2006. This was followed by a $210-million fund in 2008 and a third one of $255 million in 2012.

      ...

      While the first fund was completely IT focused, 90 per cent of the second was also deployed with a focus on technology so was the third fund, though it invested in other sectors as well, such as green tech (Azure Power), education (GTT, Attano, Vienova), financial services (NetAmbit, Shubham), health care (Eye Q, LifeCell), and IT-enabled real estate plays. Srikanth and Goyal said the fourth fund would not change its focus on IT and related segments.

      ...

      Since its inception in 2006, Helion has invested in about 50 companies in various sectors including consumer tech, enterprise tech (business and infra), and technology-enabled services, among others.

    5. Gooptu, Biswarup (2012-08-31). "Helion Venture Partners in talks to sell stake in Amba Research". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

      The article notes:

      Helion Venture Partners, India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management, is in talks to sell its stake in investment research outsourcing firm Amba Research.

    6. Nair, Radhika P (2012-03-22). "Helion Venture Partners closes $255 million fund". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

      The article notes:

      Mauritius registered early to mid stage India focused fund, Helion Venture Partners has closed a $255 million fund, said Sanjeev Aggarwal, Senior Managing Director, Helion Advisors. This is Helion's third fund.

      Helion, who have invested in companies like Make My Trip, Komli Media, redBus and SMS Gupshup, had raised a $140 million fund in 2006 and a $210 million fund in 2008. The first two funds are almost fully invested, the venture firm said.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Helion Venture Partners to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by "same case"? The two articles have no overlapping editors. The only similarity is that I participated in both discussions.

    Other than the portfolio list, the only text in the article is:

    Helion Ventures Partners is an Indian focused venture fund based in Mauritius. It manages US $600M and invests in early to mid-stage companies in India in sectors such as Outsourcing, Internet, Mobile, Technology Products, Retail, Education and Financial Services. Helion is advised by a team of India based advisors with offices in Bangalore and Gurgaon. The advisors help the fund to select companies to invest in. And post investment the advisors work with the companies in areas such as finance, Human Resources, technology, marketing and operations.

    How is this spam? This is neutrally written content.

    Cunard (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was a close call, because some coverage does exist, as shown by the keep votes above. However, after looking through these, it seems to me that they are lists of investments, rather than substantive coverage of the company itself, and therefore do not count towards the substantive coverage needed to meet GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be a weak keep, however, since I was on the fence and some of that had to do with the article lacking an encyclopedic structuring (until Cunard gave the article a better balance) I've decided to go with keep. Also, I hate being on the fence about anything!!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let us try one more week before it gets closed as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cunard and I seem to have a basic disagreement, but I think it can be resolved. As I see it, there are many reasons for deletion besides notability. Blatant advertising is a speedy criterion--and not-blatent advertising is a violation of WP:NOT, and should therefore be deleted. Yes, it is possible to fix it: just as its possible to fix an article that's a copyvio, by rewriting it. But in both cases, if it isn't fixed, it must be removed.
The question now is 1)whether it is sufficiently fixed. I think it probably is, for Cunard does not what a proper article should be & I do not see myself questioning the work of an editor of his experience and skill. . and 2) whether the references actually do show notability. I continue to think they do not. Articles just specifying funding are mere announcements, not coverage in depth. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even after the extensive work by Cunard, their are substantive disagreements on policy points. Was going to "No Consensus", but a third relisting, especially since this is a 2nd nom, couldn't hurt. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. The challenge was made that this person is not notable. Gene93k has linked sources that conclusively prove otherwise, and there is no need for anyone else to pile on.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nels J. Smith

Nels J. Smith (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)

A very short Unnoticeable BLP, and poorly sourced with no value to be included in an encyclopedia. having no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, a recently created article with no significant history page written by article subject. DaeafcMnnC (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • And this is relevant how? Notability is not temporary. It does not expire when a politician retires from politics. The systemic bias against topics from before 1994 is not grounds for exclusion. Neither does the fact that it took 14 years for someone to get around to writing about the subject in Wikipedia. The article is a stub, but sufficient reliable source coverage to improve the article appears to exist. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't appear to understand what i have said, the relevance is that there is no WP:Notability at all! i didn't said: Notability is temporary i said there is no WP:Notability.
  • it took 14 years for someone to get around to write about? well the thing is that the subject was written by the article subject! which meet WP:COI?--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The nominator's assertion that the article was written by the subject does not appear to be true. The creator is an admin who has been on Wikipedia since 2006. The stub was created because the subject is notable and should be included. Also WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason to delete. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 28 November 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Shapka

Maury Shapka (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)

WP:BLP, resting entirely on primary sources that cannot confer notability, of a person notable only as the leader of a fringe political party and as a non-winning candidate for political office. These are not claims of notability that satisfy WP:NPOL, and no quality sourcing is present to fulfill WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. I favor the lowest of barriers for inclusion of material about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regards to size or ideology on the grounds that this is material that readers reasonably expect to be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. As this subject was the head of the Natural Law Party in Alberta, a keep on those grounds. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely being a political party leader is sufficient notability to support a properly sourced article — but for a minor or fringe party especially, it can't be (and isn't) an automatic inclusion freebie that constitutes an exemption from our actual sourcing requirements, or allows the person to keep an article that relies exclusively on primary sources and passing namechecks in election results tables. If there were even just a couple of properly reliable sources that were substantively about him here, I'd have let this go — but there are zero. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, leader of a fringe party does not guarantee de facto notability, but a redirect would be suitable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person got under 300 votes and placed 6th in a run for a national office. The argument that we need this article to properly cover the natural law party makes no sense. That party is adequately covered by articles on that subject, and this article gives no light on the parties philosophy of goals, although it does give some evidence of its failure to generate a political base.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio of walkthrough material. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Qin walkthrough

Prince of Qin walkthrough (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 is a video game walkthrough, not an article. BeowulfBrower (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per submitter LorTalk 07:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OWASP

AfDs for this article:
OWASP (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)

Speedy was removed by Feezo so here we are and I echo my comments before for this being questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found was only here, here, here and here but none of it seems convincing enough of a better article. It's worth noting the two products (listed at the side) were also deleted at separately timed AfDs (2009 and 2012) so I'm not entirely sure if this one is solidly keepable. Notifying past users and taggers Widefox, SarekOfVulcan and Richhoncho SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete blatant promo (-1) WP:NOTPROMO together with borderline notability WP:GNG WP:CORP WP:CORPDEPTH (+0.5). There's sources at my first AfD, may be WP:TOOSOON, or just a case of all the promo needing WP:TNT to start over. (Note many COI editors and SPA accounts on talk) Widefox; talk 07:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with rewrite. The article has no citations and is written like an advertisment, although I think that the topic is notable and has been featured in secondary sources (although to an extent that we would ahve to crop some of the information). There is no rule against referenceing homepages where other sources exist, and there is alos no rule that says a bad article is one for deltion. RailwayScientist (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain? Articles with no citations get deleted as failing WP:GNG. Promo articles like this can get deleted per WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd rather keep this mess than WP:TNT? So who's ever going to fix it - it's been years and got worse. Although WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, I've never seen this many WP:SPA editors shoot themselves in the foot. In principle this should be a notable organisation, I agree, but I didn't even get a straight answer on the talk to what sort and this EXT link promo SPA farm is just a mess. Would you stub it? If kept, can we agree to be more strict about COI editors disclosing and edit requesting on the talk. There's 20-30 or more SPAs on this! Widefox; talk 09:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at minimum I would expect to keep sufficient on the organisation to meet an encyclopaedia user's "who?" query (e.g. after reading that ICO document) and enough to meet a basic "what?" query, which for me would be the OWASP Top Ten paragraph, plus probably those on the ASVS and the Testing Guide. Detail on tools such as ZAP and Webgoat are less important and can be found by the interested user on the OWASP site itself. So losing the Chapters section and pruning the Projects section would create a sufficiently improved article in my view. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree to stub it, I will change to weak keep. Widefox; talk 09:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested in others' input on whether the suggested changes are appropriate, so after allowing an interval, I'll probably apply a WP:BOLD edit along these lines. As to the article's future, I take your point about the risk of it being weighed down by COI edits. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been on my TODO list for quite some time. I've worked in security and found OWASP a useful reference. Granted, it is not well written, but I will, in time, get to it. I have texts with some info for citation. Softtest123 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we rewrite the advertisement-like sentences (specifically removing the mention of the non-profit organization in the lede, or perhaps moving it to the end of the article), this could be a useful article. The subject is in itself useful and notable, it's just that the article for it needs a little work. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite. I am one of those geeks with a CISSP certification, & I can tell you that this is an organization that produces research & software that is valuable to the computer security community. While the article can use additional citations, the thirteen citations establish notability, particularly in its field of knowledge. Lose the promo, not the article. There is no need to throw out this baby with the bathwater. Peaceray (talk) 21:40, 3 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALLINMINI

ALLINMINI (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)

Appears to fail WP:Notability and looks like a WP:COI issue, promotion for a new & not particularly notable company. JamesG5 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:08, 5 December 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 nomination withdrawn. Upon further investigation, it appears that I'm the guilty party here, who pulled this out of a candidates list and spun it off to a standalone article for some mystifying reason I have no recollection of — but I remain the only substantive author since that time, so I'm going to just speedy it G7. (The original redirect also appears to be blocking a potentially more notable person of the same name, so just recreating that isn't suitable.) Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

André Leroux

André Leroux (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)

WP:BLP of a politician notable as a small-town (2K) mayor and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While there is sourcing here, there's not nearly enough of it to claim WP:GNG — rather, it's WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that all mayors and all candidates for office always get, and fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:21, 28 November 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. Uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just One Drink

Just One Drink (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)

Issues with WP:Notability, WP:SPIP, and WP:COI. Page author has another page in AFD also for promotion of this project. JamesG5 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to have screened earlier this month at a film festival and is supposed to have an official release next year, but I can't see where there's actually any coverage out there. Screening can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee and short films are usually passed over as far as coverage goes. It's not unheard of for short films to gain coverage - Rodrigo Gudiño's The Facts in the Case of Mister Hollow is proof of that - but it's still relatively rare. I have no problem with this being created in the future if coverage does become available, but I would recommend that it go through AfC if the person creating the article has a COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:06, 19 December 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. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Herrera

Mike Herrera (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)

Contested PROD. The subject fails notability guidelines. His band is well-known, but he is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Colorado Springs shootings

2015 Colorado Springs shootings (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 questionable, outside recentism. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:36, 28 November 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. Of the people arguing to keep, two are WP:SPA, whose input I discounted, and the third failed to make any policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyc

Encyc (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 WP:GNG. Practically unsourced. Argument for keeping on the talk page was based on the two sources currently cited as "References" in the article. The first is a book I have that, as far as I can tell, doesn't talk about the subject at all. The page number given is the references list page that lists the one citation (of the article on Wikipedia). The other citation curiously cites page 241, but according to GBooks it's only 190 pages long. A search through GBooks reveals it in a list and that's all. Likewise I did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Largoplazo: Indeed. I noticed that. Also odd is that none of the deletions look to be due to the AfD (i.e. the deletion the G4 refers back to). Also checked encyc.org -- not there either. I imagine it's a mistake, but we might as well ping Jimfbleak anyway in case there's something else we can check (not expecting him to remember a 2009 speedy :) ). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—Largo Plazo,Rhododendrites I don't think the discussion ever existed. The entire content of the version I deleted was the SD tag that has caused the confusion and a restatement of the rationale for the first deletion. I deleted since there was no relevant content, but it looks as if I either omitted to check whether there had been an AFD, or did so but forgot to change the deletion rationale. Either way, it seems to be my error, for which I apologise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you Rhododendrites for your interest in the article and the notice on my talk page. I think you might have overlooked p53 in Darius' book where content from Encyc is quoted having to do with mailing lists and control systems. At any rate, Wikipedia is not paper and I would really appreciate it if you would let this article stand. It's really not hurting anything by being here, and future scholars might appreciate Wikipedia having an article on the topic so that they can quickly be brought up to speed. Duck of Luke (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Duck of Luke: Wikipedia is not paper, but has clear rules for article inclusion (WP:N being the most obvious and most relevant to this discussion). "Keep" at an Afd in which contested notability is the nomination reason is typically only considered valid if accompanied by arguments showing how it is notable, and that requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". That means coverage of the subject itself rather than citing it or briefly mentioning it. None of this is to say it's not a high-quality site or even that it's not important, but that it's not "notable". If we don't have standards for inclusion, Wikipedia turns into the rest of the web -- a directory, a place for promotion, an indiscriminate collection of information, and all of the other things it is explicitly not. I did search for sources before nominating, but if you can find some that I couldn't, please do include them here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your desire to improve Wikipedia but I think the slippery slope argument here is a bit exaggerated. Wikipedia carried the Encyc article for a long time and there was no loss of respectability, no mass confusion, no rush of spammers, no taxing of server resources, no problem for anybody.
The article is well-justified considering that the references are not mere newspaper clippings, but important books written by scholars specializing in online knowledge. Wikipedia is more complete and comprehensive with this article in it, and loses literally nothing by keeping it here. Duck of Luke (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that for this one topic there is overwhelming justification for applying different treatment from the one to which all other articles are subjected? Or that we change the notability policy and its implementation overall? If the former, well, that won't fly. If the latter, you can initiate a discuss at a higher level than this article about making alterations to this website's framework for evaluating notability. That matter won't get resolved here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Largoplazo! I'm not trying to change anything, don't worry about that. If anything I would like to keep things simple. We have two very high quality references. Done - keep. Secondarily, read Dariusz' book. It's great. Duck of Luke (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • you insult me with single purpose message. unfriendly. Yt442 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) further you Rhodo should recuse yourself because you are a paid employee of Wiki edu. and ninja never read Common knowledge reference.[reply]
  • Sigh... So, I suppose, working for an organization that engages in activities on Wikipedia means that I would use my volunteer account to delete articles about all other online encyclopedias? Because they're in "competition" with Wikipedia or something? And of all the wikis, encyclopedias, and websites with similar aims Encyc is the one I've decided poses the biggest threat? ......
    Also, not only have I read Common Knowledge, but I've cited it, assigned it, and in fact got it out to check the citation for this article -- a "reference" which anyone who has a copy or takes the time to check Google Books can see barely even qualifies as a brief mention.
    Regarding single-purpose accounts, see WP:SPA. Everyone is entitled to participate, yes, and I didn't mean to offend with the tag. It's more or less standard procedure for these discussions. The idea is that when people come to Wikipedia just to participate in a particular process and achieve a particular result, their opinion is weighed accordingly -- as someone who is here for certain ends rather than to improve Wikipedia to be as good as it can be according to the community's policies and guidelines. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. There's some mind-numbingly boring drama spread out over a few blogs and such, and it got a trivial mention in some long list of online encyclopedias in a book, but that seems to be the extent of it. I guess it can be redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure where. List of online encyclopedias, maybe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 04:52, 28 November 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. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McIlvenna

Sean McIlvenna (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 paramilitary. No more entitled to an article than any of the hundreds of paramilitaries killed in The Troubles. Quis separabit? 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to be quite well remembered, considering in addition to the marching band he gets an annual parade (in Glasgow no less). As usual features in multiple books on the history of the IRA. I don't think the right approach to take (especially when the subject is people killed in The Troubles) is to decide whether people are "entitled to an article." [46], [47], [48], [49] —МандичкаYO 😜 04:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Irish republican fifth columnists in Glasgow (who, ironically, are among the most staunchly opposed to Scottish nationalism and the SNP Party) choose to glorify him, mostly, I suspect, to irritate the authorities and pro-unionists in the West of Scotland, particularly Lanarkshire, does not make him remotely notable as notability is defined for Wikipedia editing purposes. And re your other point; yes, it is entirely appropriate "to decide whether people are "entitled to an article", as determining eligibility for an article is why AFD exists in the first place. Also, given that some 3600 people were killed in the last installment of The Troubles, we are not creating 3,600 articles, are we? That would be "selective condemnation" and Gerry Adams says that's wrong. Quis separabit? 15:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 04:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 04:49, 28 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lewis (Canadian politician)

Andrew Lewis (Canadian politician) (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)

WP:BLP, entirely unsourced once unretrievable deadlinks were deprecated, of a person notable only as the deputy leader of a minor political party and as a non-winning candidate in provincial and federal elections. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL — the deputy leadership might count for something if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but does not confer an inclusion freebie if the sourcing for it is weak or nonexistent, and the non-winning candidacies don't contribute any enduring notability at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:12, 5 December 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. The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irl A. Gladfelter

Irl A. Gladfelter (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 has not been improved or had references added. AMDG4 (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ezekiel Ox. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ox and the Fury

The Ox and the Fury (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)

Reason Dalamani (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:39, 28 November 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. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Hoffer von Ankershoffen

Helmut Hoffer von Ankershoffen (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)

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as I'm simply not gathering how this is keepable and the best my searches found was only this, this, this and this. The author's name "helmuthva" suggests it may be the subject himself and it's also not surprising this article hasn't changed since then. Notifying tagger Bonadea and also DGG who lists to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting The article on his company was deleted at the deWP in 2008 at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10._Dezember_2008#Neofonie_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29. The discussion indicated they felt the company never was notable--that its product was not major, and that they had no major market share. I can not see what the referencing was there, but in 2008 that wasn't the major factor in their deletion discussions. (it remains in the enWP--I'm lve listed it for discussion at [[ In the discussion, it was suggested that it would make more sense to have an article on the founder if he was also the developer of the software. I do not know if they ever had one, but there's no article on him at present. The material here after 2008 was obviously not in their article at the time, His more recent company, WeTab, has an unchallenged article discussing the firm and the product in both the en and deWP. The one in the deWP is much more detailed --reasonably enough, since it is/was a German company and product. Hoffer is discussed briefly in that article in the history section, "One of the two managing directors, Helmut Hoffer von Ankershoffen, .. was forced to resign on October 4 ... after it became known that he had written positive reviews under a false name at Amazon.com [ref. to the same Spiegel article as here]" That ref --and discussion of the matter, and other refs on it -- are not in our article on WeTab, but could reasonably be added there. I have no firm opinion. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- triple relist needs some sort of opinion: the article does not express much in the way of claims to notability beyond creating Germany's first search engine (which doesn't seem to have sources indicating that this was important to Germany) or founding companies that may or may not be notable in itself. It's a hard choice, and I could imagine going a different way in a different time with a slightly differently written article or a new source or two; but this AfD has gone on for nearly a month, so it'd be good to have a decision one way or another, and this is more of my gut feeling from similarity to other AfDs than on strong policy. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and MSC. In addition, the lack of interest does not bode well for this article being improved at any point in the near future to a level which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:19, 19 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Tintin

DJ Tintin (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)

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as my searches simply found nothing at all and I'm not gathering anything to suggest a better article. It's also worth noting I was one of the many first reviewers of this article when it first started in April 2012 so I may distantly vaguely remember and it's not surprising it hasn't changed since then (SPA account of course). Notifying PRODer AllyD and I'm not sure how often PRODer Theopolisme logs in anymore but I'll notify him anyway (if you see this, long time no see ). SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:08, 5 December 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 concerns of notability appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spark Energy

Spark Energy (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)

Questionably notable and improvable as the links I found were only this and this for the Houston, Texas company and the also this, this and this for the Selkirk, Scotland company. If at all, it seems there's somewhat more coverage for the Scottish company but all in all, both also seem questionably keepable. Notifying author Victorgrigas and also DGG who lists to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added some sources to show that the company based in Scotland has grown rapidly and received quite a bit of coverage. I consider that there is enough for it to have WP:CORPDEPTH. The article had just contained a small amount of information on the Scottish company until 12 October when there some material added to the article which related to a separate US company. I have removed this from the article and put it on the talk page- it consists of a couple of press releases and a page on a listing site. The US company began as Spark Energy Ventures in 1999 and was incorporated in 2014. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references all seem to indicate it is not yet notable. It's odd that according to an over-literal interpretations of the notability guidelines 2 or 3 references saying or implying that something is not notable could make it notable for our purposes. I do not accept such a irrational result. In this case, they show the firm is just a minor competitor in the field and showing its relatively low funding, and received an award for being fast-growing(which almost always implies still very new. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick tcs 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks better and an article for the Scottish Spark Energy may be notable and acceptable but I'll still hear any more comments if they come before this AfD ends. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs) did excellent work sourcing, expanding, and cleaning up the article. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 6 December 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) clpo13(talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hanafis

List of Hanafis (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)

Total OR and POV. no scholarly sources give "lists of hanafis". People are not put into lists according to their religion the last time I checked. Yes there can be lists of Hanafi authors or Hanafi clergy, if sources are found for that, but a list of hanafis? no please. We are not in nazi germany. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Lists on Wikipedia are primarily navigational aids - we do not require that the list itself is notable, though we do require that the subject of the list (Hanafi, in this case) is notable and, for most lists of people, that the people listed are notable and that they verifiably meet the criterion for being on the list - the sourcing for that does not have to be given in the list, provided it is given in the articles on the listed people. I have checked several of the articles, and in each case the article identifies them, giving reliable sources, as a Hanafi lawyer or legal theorist. The list could possibly do with some checking (there are a couple of redlinks and, despite what it says at the top, not all the entries are currently in chronological order), but that is a matter for normal editing, not deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is one of those instances where a category is more appropriate. A Hanafi can be anyone of 500 million followers (= a third of the Muslim population according to Hanafi#Sources and methodology) of that school. A "list of Hanafis" is just too vague, may include pretty much any Muslim from Turkey/Levant/Egypt and Central Asia, and is a perfect example of point 6 of WP:DOAL: Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Revoking vote per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shia Muslims (2nd nomination). (Too extensive Wikipedia-wide "issue") - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have dozens of other lists on Wikipedia such as List of Jews and List of Ahmadis. Should they be deleted aswell?
  • Keep, categories should not replace lists, per WP:CLN. It seems to be a defining characteristic of Islamic scholarship. People whose notability is unrelated to the topic don't belong on this list. Annotation would make it much more valuable, of course. Siuenti (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Siuenti (talk) 22:25, 1 December 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. Michig (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason De Carteret

AfDs for this article:
Jason De Carteret (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 is nothing here to show the notability of the subject. The one reference given talks of a failed exploration attempt. Egghead06 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator seems to have removed a couple of dead references from the article just before nominating it - it might have been preferable to simply have marked them as deadlinks and left them in, in case the rest of us could find them archived somewhere. Though having said that, there was just enough detail in the references before the nominator deleted them that I am not sure that they would have been deemed reliable by current standards even when the pages were live. Also, I note that while the article easily survived AfD back in 2008, we can't see the article as it was then because of WP:COPYVIO problems identified in 2010 - is any kind admin in a position to tell us whether there were further references in the article then? (Or are we just dealing with changing notability standards?) PWilkinson (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've restored the deadlinks for any editors to make their own mind up.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Guernsey explorer sets sights on Kalahari desert". BBC News.
  2. ^ "Guernsey man part of team breaking South Pole record". BBC News.
  3. ^ "The ultimate winter car". Telegraph.co.uk. 4 November 2011.
  4. ^ "Meet Jason De Carteret". mirror.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality within publicly traded companies

Inequality within publicly traded companies (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)

A personal essay. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I am sympathetic to the author and think that some of this material, when sourced, might properly exist in other articles, this is clearly a WP:Essay and as such, belongs on a user page, not as an independent article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 6 December 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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rostro de México 2012

Rostro de México 2012 (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 only two references given for this event lack independence from it. The Spanish Wikipedia had nothing on it. I am not seeing enough to support a notability claim. KDS4444Talk 08:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:59, 28 November 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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Smellmitment

Make a Smellmitment (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)

We already have Wieden+Kennedy AND Old Spice in Wikipedia. Why this, with bunch of YouTube links? MarkYabloko 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Man Your Man Could Smell Like. Nobody's going to make a comment? Alright, I'll go with my initial suggestion and say it should be merged, then. I agree with the nominator that we don't need individual articles on every advertising campaign related to this product, but I think there's enough available sourcing that we can include it somewhere. I don't think this is off-topic for the target article, though I guess purists may disagree. If someone can locate more reliable sources that discuss the advertising campaign in detail, that would make it possible to keep this, but I don't think it's there yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:56, 28 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mahmud Khan II

Mir Mahmud Khan II (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 sure how reliable the source is. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 19th century Imperial Gazetteer of India may not be a reliable source for interpretation ofIndian re civilization, but it is certainly good enough to establish who was the ruler of a particualr Indian prinely state, and people in such positions are notable. Multiple other histories are of courseavailable, and nominating this without checking is not helpful. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:56, 28 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl López García

Raúl López García (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)

It seems like the article is a auto-biography. Plus it needs more reliable sources WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:55, 28 November 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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Friendly Precincts

Homeless Friendly Precincts (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 appears to be an outgrowth of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Georgatos which also has issues. Information on this page should be merged in to the "Homeless" section of the main article rather than having its own page. JamesG5 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article in its own right with substantial references and if an outgrowth then out of the Matagarup Refugee Camp. It is a significant public value story for the homeless and a campaign that involves multiple parties and has secured commitments. I believe it should have a page of its own so it grows in its own right. This campaign has many involved and should not be deleted. Georgatos is only the person who established the campaign and it should not be limited to him but also involves Kaeshagen, Clarke, the homeless sector and commitments from Councils and others. Keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattersthestruggle (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:54, 28 November 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) clpo13(talk) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Trafeli

Mario Trafeli (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG or any of the lesser qualifications for athletes. Article does not make any assertion of any claim that would reach automatic notability either. Can't imagine why being named to an ethnic hall of fame would qualify one as notable. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As expanded, the article clearly meets any notability guideline for his accomplishments at the national level as a speed skater, earning induction to the halls of fame listed in the article. The material added all ultimately stemmed from the sources provided in the article when it was nominated for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Came across this from DYK. Great job on the expansion Alansohn. Clearly meets GNG. His sport, speed skating isn't really listed in WP:ATHLETE. "Amateur sports" has no applicable category, "Ice hockey" assumes one is on a team, "figure skating" is a completely different set of skills. Only remotely close parallel would be track and field, though clearly not on ice. However, using that it is a race, he meets multiple criteria #3 (won 3 international competitions), #7 (set five United States records), and #10 (inducted into the National Speed Skating Hall of Fame in 2010). Thus, would seem he also meets reasonable criteria of Athlete. Clear keep. SusunW (talk) 07:19, 2 December 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. joe deckertalk 02:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Film Awards

The Short Film Awards (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)

May not fit notability criteria, the project only has 400-some likes on Facebook and most sources on a Google search are by the organization itself. smileguy91talk - contribs 02:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:12, 28 November 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 Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Please could the people who know this sort of stuff do this editorially?  Sandstein  18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tinctoria

Tinctoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Tinctorius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Tinctorium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Innotata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Giganteum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Gigantea (species) (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every entry here is a partial title match. Deleting all these entries leaves an empty disambiguation page. With no redirect target in site, delete is the only option left. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a Google search turning up nothing but Wikipedia articles about plants. smileguy91talk - contribs 02:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have now added Giganteus and Innotatus to that list. PamD 13:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And had a go at enhancing it - see List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#I–K for three variations on how to do it, or see Talk:List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#Searching on species names PamD 14:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have now upgraded that list in sections A,B and C: takes a little time, what with following up side issues which crop up as I go. But I'll get it done. PamD 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "D" now done. PamD 15:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with regard to WP:PTM, the pages contribute very little over search engine output. Section redirects seem reasonable, although if we wanted to keep the navigation aid, we should also sprinkle {{in title}} in the list article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to delete I've reconsidered my comment above and concluded that a redirect would be worse than worthless to our readers. A reader encountering one of these words probably saw them in a species name, and to be redirect to a page that tells them it's used in species names is entirely pointless. The search function would serve readers better in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to a page which (a) tells them that it's used in species names, (b) links to Wiktionary, (c) explains its meaning and (d) offers an "in title" link to articles including it (as in my proposed enhancement of List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, currently implemente at I-K), would be far from pointless. PamD 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:24, 6 December 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. This is a weak enough 'keep', based on the strength - or, I should say, lack thereof - of the !votes that I seriously considered closing this as "no consensus". But the fact remains that it's a unanimous 'keep' (aside from the nominator, of course), so the weakest of keep conclusions this is. Because of that I'll note that for this one there isn't the usual "this would be disruptive" if a second nomination is considered desirable. The Bushranger One ping only 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald L. Hallstrom

Donald L. Hallstrom (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 appears to be sourced only from publications associated with his position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official pbp 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hallstrom is part of the Presidency of the Seventy, making him one of the top 22 leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. The sources are not created by him or under his direct supervision. There is enough information to indicate he is notable, especially since there are articles on everyone else who has been a member of the Presidency of the Seventy.198.109.0.16 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because there are other articles on other people who have held this office doesn't exclude this article from having proper sourcing. And I don't think you properly understand what's "independent". One commonly used definition is "vested interest", and it's clear that Hallstrom has a vested interest in the LDS Church that has produced the sources on him. pbp 17:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As mentioned, Hallstrom holds an important role in the LDS Church. By virtue of his place as a Seventy, he is one who is in a prominent spot on the list of those who might become church president. If all the apostles suddenly died all at once (hasn't happened yet, but that's not saying it couldn't happen), the Presidency of the Seventy would be the next hierarchical body from which the new Church President will be chosen. Hallstrom serves both as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy and a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, who give lifetime service, as they are merely released as general authorities. Just like any other Seventy, he will be granted emeritus status the October following his birthday. I have searched the internet for mentions of members of the Presidency of the Seventy, and a good majority of those I've come in contact with are from non-LDS sources. I won't post links to any of those tonight, but I can assure you, such links do exist. Did anyone in favor of page deletion even bother to check articles mentioning Hallstrom by doing a web search? Those sources are easy to come across. At the end of the day, I think the proposal to delete this article shows a clear anti-LDS bias. There are several articles about the LDS Church here on Wikipedia, and most of those use LDS-related sources for verification. I think a better approach to this issue is to post on the Latter Day Saint movement page here and invite comments. Since I am coming late to this discussion, I want to get verification that what I'm telling you is true. I've been swamped with a move, a job, and health issues, which have forced me to cut down on Wikipedia time. If not for all that, I could have the sources for you by tomorrow. With everything on my plate the way it is, it may take several days or a week or slightly more to again find these sources. I would ask for your patience with me as I work to prove my point. I would also request that any further discussion, unless it's a new argument for or against deleting this page, be suspended until I can provide those sources I've promised. Can we agree to that, please? --Jgstokes (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jgstokes: As noted in the nomination, the first page of Google search contains only LDS-related sources. And, as noted in previous nominations, it's not an "anti-LDS bias", it's a desire for independent sources; somebody whose notability comes from a particular organization needs to have at least some sources that aren't affiliated in any manner with that organization. Also, I don't believe being a Seventy is enough for something to automatically be kept even if sources can't be found. If you believe this, you should suggest that WP:N for people be included. pbp 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending secondary sources. If, as stated, he is a major personality in the LDS, there shouldn't be much difficulty in finding good independent secondary sources. JMWt (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or userify, obviously notable per Seventy_(LDS_Church)#Presidency_of_the_Seventy, pending secondary sources. --Elvey(t•c) 03:32, 28 November 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carol F. McConkie

Carol F. McConkie (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 appears to be sourced only from publications associated with her position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official pbp 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep PBP's campaign to remove most articles on important leaders of the LDS Church needs to be stopped. He has consistently expanded what he considers "LDS" sources to class everything as such. The sources here give indepth coverage of the subject, and are more independent than many sources used to create articles on politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, @Johnpacklambert:, what needs to be stopped is you creating piles and piles and piles of badly sourced articles. If you want this articles consistently kept, you've got to source them when you create them! It ain't rocket science! pbp 05:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: User:Johnpacklambert characterization of this as a "campaign to remove most articles on important leaders of the LDS Church" is inaccurate. I only nominate articles for deletion that have no non-LDS sources. I do this regardless of the article's creator; though JPL is among the ones who have created the most articles solely sourced from LDS sources. pbp
  • Comment I have added additional sources, one of which has absolutely no connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the other is not in any way a Church publication either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She appears in the Deseret News a lot. I know that's a church paper, but if she's really important in the church itself, that might mean something. It's not like LDS is small... Just my two cents! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Young Women (organization). Being first consouler in this organization is not a sufficient claim of notability for a standalone article, and there is an abvious lack of significant coverage in secondary independent sources. Redirecting the article to the organization a subject belongs is the standard outcome for individuals who don't otherwise meet specific SNGs or the GNG. Notability could be eventually revised if sources will emerge in the future, but actually it's just too soon. Cavarrone 12:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury

Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury (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 local politician. An upazila is an administrative region three levels below national. Being a sub-regional political party president does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The first two cites mention the subject only tangentially. The third cite is a dead link, but I doubt very much that it contained significant coverage of the subject, as extensive searches for this Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury have found nothing but passing mentions: [50], [51], [52], [53] (mostly of the "was in attendance" variety) and one brief quote. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 28 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sohin Shah

AfDs for this article:
Sohin Shah (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)

Promotion from blocked sock on not notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is passing mentions and PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 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 Argument on both side have some merit. Some in favor of deletion suggest OR, those in favor on inclusion suggested the concept has been studied extensively. Redirect/Merge are also viable there is no bias against that if sources are not added. Valoem talk contrib 06:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive love

Obsessive love (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 discursive without any clear subject, and appears mostly to be some combination of WP:SYN and a WP:COATRACK to hang other things on.

  • It starts with the words "Obsessive love is a hypothetical state", but then fails to give any real information about what this hypothesized state might be, or who might have proposed this hypothesis.
  • Mentions mental illness, but does not use WP:MEDRS sources.
  • Lists a lengthy bibliography, but is entirely unferenced except just one mention of one author, without specifying a work, or a page reference or other more detailed citation.
  • At a quick glance, the bibliography appears to be made up mostly of popular-audience self-help books.

I've taken a look at trimming it, but found that if all the questionable sentences were to be eliminated, essentially nothing would be left. I'm not sure quite what should be done with this, but in its current state, I believe deletion would be an improvement, and I can't see any better options at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-non-MEDRS sources is not a valid reason to delete an article. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites: - The essay does have a point; however, let me rephrase my earlier reasoning. I intended my argument as more on the point that the specific subject isn't already covered in any other article, and the deletion of this article would result in a hole in the coverage of the subject of love in general. Thanks very much for pointing that out though. smileguy91talk - contribs 05:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for both keep and merge are compelling, would benefit from more input. Onel5969 TT me 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect probably, but the current description is so vague that I can't tell if it should redirect to infatuation, limerence, Relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) or erotomania (all of which need major work btw). I just deleted a sentence on Obsessive love that said it should be "differentiated from relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) that commonly includes doubts regarding one's own feelings towards an intimate partner, preoccupation with the partner’s feelings towards oneself, doubts about the rightness of the relationship and preoccupation with the perceived flaws of the partner," because that was an inaccurate and unsourced definition of ROCD. It looks like it was based off the Wikipedia article ROCD which gives an equally poor, unsourced definition of ROCD. ROCD is just regular OCD where the intrusive thoughts (obsessions) have a relationship-oriented theme. I think that might be where Obsessive love fits best. It looks like there have been multiple unsuccessful attempts made to adequately source this article. I wasn't able to find anything that meets WP:MEDRS in my own search, which would be needed for the article's current tone. It seems to me that redirecting it makes sense since it's doubtful it can stand on its own. I'm also fine with deleting it completely. Permstrump (talk) 08:45, 14 December 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 05:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar Makale

Gaspar Makale (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)

Sourcing doesn't establish notability per WP:BIO. Kelly hi! 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 28 November 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 Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hollingsworth

AfDs for this article:
Adam Hollingsworth (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)

Other than a few website links, there are no significant sources for this subject. Recommend entry deletion. WikiWatcher987 (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: WikiWatcher987 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
— WikiWatcher987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Adam Hollingsworth: Gov. Rick Scott's new right-hand man". Tampa Bay Times.
  2. ^ "Oops. New documents show another degree controversy dogs Scott's COS, Adam Hollingsworth - Naked Politics". Miami Herald.
  3. ^ "Marc Caputo: Hollingsworth's lie about PR degree bad spin for Gov. Rick Scott". miamiherald.
  4. ^ "Jacksonville's Adam Hollingsworth puts out fires for Florida Gov. Rick Scott". jacksonville.com.
  5. ^ "Hollingsworth steps down as Scott's chief of staff". Jacksonville Business Journal. 20 November 2014.
  6. ^ "Will Anyone Investigate Adam Hollingsworth Under Florida's Perjury Statute?". Sunshine State News - Florida Political News.
  • @WikiWatcher987: We were all newbies once, so try not to take a little criticism too personally, even if it may seem pointy to you . . . . Most of us wiki veterans are used to talking to each other in wiki jargon short-hand with links to policies and guidelines, and, yes, that can be arcane and a little obnoxious at times. Even though the article subject does not satisfy the specific criteria for politicians, he does satisfy the criteria under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Many subject areas have specific notability guidelines (SNGs), but all of them are back-stopped by GNG. For future reference, you may want to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion; there's a lot of good advice and conventional wisdom to be found there. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me or ask on my user talk page. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 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 Silibinin. And merge as editors may desire. Not much discussion, but nobody is for keeping this as a separate article.  Sandstein  10:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfad

Sulfad (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 coverage in the secondary biomedical literature so fals WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:38, 6 December 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. Indepth coverage was not established and the WP:BURDEN was not acted upon. Mkdwtalk 05:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Bogdanov (boxer)

Andrey Bogdanov (boxer) (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 boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. I had PROD'd this for the same reason but the de-PRODer disagreed about not meeting WP:NBOX - and of course I disagree with that. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets prong #2 of WP:NBOX. Has fought for and won a regional WBO title (Oriental title). Also, for a guy that has only once fought outside of Russia (and that was in Moldova) I found a number of English sources that discuss him: [54], [55], [56], and [57]. Of course a lot of these are not in depth, but considering this level of coverage in English and the meeting of WP:NBOX I think its fair to presume that Russian sources exist. Therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to WP:NBOX #1 applies and he did not fight for the world title of the WBOPeter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree #1 is not met, but #2 is. Only one of the four need met - failing to not meet another is irrelevant. Otherwise, someone like Manny Pacquiao or Jack Johnson would not meet the guidelines since they didn't have an amateur career that meets #4. RonSigPi (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I just don't see how #2 is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bogdanov is from near the Estonian border which can hardly be considered Asia. Without wanting to get too sidetracked, back when I was in school during the Dark Ages we were taught there were 3 races--Caucasian, Negroid, and Oriental. I always figured that Mdtemp, like almost all WP editors was a lot younger than I am, but using it as a race definition then both fighters would be "non-Oriental". I don't think any of this aspect necessarily reflects on notability one way or the other.
Bogdanov is not representing Pskov, he is representing RUSSIA, which spans Asia. And what athletic competitions are categorized by RACE? That is seriously laughable. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I said I didn't want to go into this, I feel compelled to respond. Russia is considered part of Europe by every athletics association I'm aware of. Furthermore, he's representing himself--not Russia. I doubt that there is a universal agreement of what countries make up the Orient--Australia is further east than China, but I don't know any Australians who consider themselves Oriental. Germany is east of France, are they Oriental? It may seem like I'm being silly, but vaguely named titles do seem a bit confusing. As I said originally, this is off topic and I'll comment no more on this aspect. Papaursa (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines is clearly in the Orient. Obviously the World Boxing Federation considers Russia eligible to compete in the Orient title. This is separate from the Asian titles. You can contact them for answers. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which again does not contribute to WP:NBOX being a regional non-world title.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While I think it could be argued he meets criteria #2 of WP:NBOX, those guidelines have been discussed previously as being very, indeed overly, generous. In this case I think GNG trumps SNG, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG with coverage being limited to fight announcements and results. Papaursa (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa That's not true; he's had enough coverage to meet GNG, including television profiles [58], [59],[60] [61]. WP:BEFORE states you need to look for native language sources before AFD and nominator did not do that. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist. — Jkudlick tcs 04:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick tcs 04:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 04:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Racism in the United States. North America1000 05:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Blackness in the U.S.

Anti-Blackness in the U.S. (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)

Content already covered in article 'Racism in the United States.' Thereppy (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 28 November 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 Post-medieval archaeology. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post Medieval

Post Medieval (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)

"Post Medieval" can be used in many contexts, not just archaeology. The archaeological usage is already discussed at Post-medieval archaeology. In Western history, the Renaissance comes to mind as "post-medieval". As a WP:DICDEF of an adjective, I don't see this as worth holding on to. BDD (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Post-medieval archaeology. The use of the term is primarily archaeological. 60 years ago, no one paid attention to archaeology after Prehistoric and Roman (yes, probably an exaggeration), so the Society for Medieval Archaeology was formed. The question of what to do about later periods led to the foundation of the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology. Terminology on periods has followed. Historians normally talk about the "early modern period". I accordingly regard BDD as wrong. Alternatively, the article should be transwikified to the dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milind Chittal

Milind Chittal (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)

Possible OrangeMoody recreation, appears promotional in tone. Mdann52 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Mdann52, Promotional language can be edit out, and there are references on the web that could improve this page, but OrangeMoody problems are serious. Is there a way to find out for sure? No use improving a page that will inevitably be deleted.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anne Delong and Mdann52, Is it right to permanently delete articles although they might be orangeMoody recreations?The subject of the article "Milind Chittal" is an eminent Indian vocalist and has all the credentials to be included in Wikipedia. Hence request that the page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 November 2015
  • Sursadhana, if an article is deleted because of undisclosed paid editing, it can be recreated by a neutral editor with new text, not that which was paid for. This is assuming that there is enough information in reliable independent sources to warrant this. If you know that the text was created by a paid editor, you should register a delete !vote and give this as a reason, because in that case the sooner this one is deleted, the sooner a fresh one can be made by an editor who is not paid, or at least admits to being paid.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anne Delong and Mdann52, Perhaps it was a mistake since the previous creator of the article got lured and induced into paying for the article to be published in wikipedia.However I feel that this maybe condoned atleast for once and the article be retained if "Milind Chittal" meets other criteria and standards set by wikipedia.The current article has been recreated with changes in the text compared to the previous one made, although it cannot be drastically changed.Request you once again to reconsider and restore the article before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 November 2015
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mdann52 Since there has not been a clear consensus on deletion and new citations have been added to the article,the nomination for deletion may please be withdrawn and the article retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 November 2015
Sursadhana Actually that's not quite the case as I have to say I still think there are simply not enough in-depth third-party sources overall for an article. Additionally, an Orangemoody restarted article especially with no better improvement is taken very seriously. But as I'm not Indian, I'll notify some users who are and may have some insight for a consensus. Yash!, AKS.9955, SpacemanSpiff and MichaelQSchmidt. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,why not retain this article in the main space and withdraw the deletion nomination since an active Indian administrator has given positive feedback on the notability of this musician? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LLBLGen Pro

AfDs for this article:
LLBLGen Pro (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 tagged this for speedy but as it was nominated once before, here we are and my searches simply found nothing better at all to suggest better notability and improvement and I'm simply not gathering how this is solidly notable from that first AfD. Notifying the only still active past users MrOllie, scope_creep, LFaraone and Walter Görlitz and also close article contributor Otis Inf. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep It is entirely notable and easily passes WP:GNG. It is a highly specialized piece of software, which is still well used and well respected in the industry. The article has not been updated for some time, but it is still used and gives a good description of what it is, links code generation and object-relational mapping, and describes well a complex and very expensive piece of software, at the forefront of the industry. Why is it being nominated again? I think this nomination is vexatious. If you wanted to know what the previous article AFD was about, read the previous AFD. scope_creep talk 12:38 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only independent ref currently in the article, infoq.com, is little more than a feature listing and does not clarify why the software is notable. The only source mentioned in the past afd that meets the criterea of significant independent coverage is the 'Pro LINQ Object Relational Mapping with C# 2008' book, the pages of which do not appear to be web-accessible. On its own, this single book ref is not sufficient to clearly establish notability, and the other refs are incidental mentions, blogs and a self-published book, none of which establish notability. Complexity and expense are not criteria used to determine notability. Dialectric (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite son

Favorite son (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 article fails WP:NAD. Favorite Son (disambiguation) page already links to the Wiktionary with pretty much the same information. Ceosad (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "How 'Favorite Son' Politics Works". The Pittsburgh Press. January 12, 1928.
  2. ^ "Favorite Son Groups Will be Numerous at 1940 Convention of Democrats". The Day. August 4, 1939
  3. ^ "How Term 'Favorite Son' Got Started in Politics". The Free Lance-Star. January 30, 1960.
  4. ^ "Favorite Son Idea is Devised to Put State in Strong Position at Convention". Ocala Star-Banner. July 3, 1960.
  5. ^ "Smathers Gets Favorite Son Candidate Nod". Ocala Star-Banner. May 29, 1968.
  6. ^ "No Demo Favorite Sons. The Deseret News. September 20, 1971.
  7. ^ Elections A to Z.
  8. ^ Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections.
  9. ^ The Presidential-Congressional Political Dictionary.
  10. ^ Bifurcated Politics.
  11. ^ California Politics 3rd Edition.
  12. ^ Safire's Political Dictionary.
  13. ^ Primary Politics.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 6 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lalya Gaye

Lalya Gaye (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 GNG, the current article is in shambles and seems to have been copy pasted from her website to boot. CSD as removed by the creator(who is SPA as far as I can see), so I took this route instead of renominating. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:42, 28 November 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. WP:NPASR. No !votes outside the nominator after two relists. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel LaPlante

Daniel LaPlante (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)

Does not meet notability for WP:CRIMINAL ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 28 November 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. No discrimination to a request at WP:REFUND. Mabalu if you'd like it work on it, you may do so formally there. Mkdwtalk 05:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L. Nichols Buttons

L. Nichols Buttons (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 evidence this person/business meets the notability guidelines for WP:BIO/WP:CORP. Declined speedy deletion. Kelly hi! 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined the speedy as the article had already been challenged per the talk page, and there are claims that coverage exists in Vogue, the Sunday Telegraph, etc. This is a thorny one because we are talking about a mid-20th century British craftsman whose work would have had very high profile exposure, but he would not necessarily have been widely credited for that work. I have found one article published in a guild journal Article published in The Journal for Weavers, Spinners & Dyers - BUT that article was written by Dixie Nichols, the subject's daughter, so not exactly neutral/unconnected. A search for Lionel Nichols pulled up a book on Norman Hartnell that I actually have a copy of, so I checked - he is not mentioned in the book, the only Nichols is LA Nichols in the bibliography who wrote something about the Royal Family. I am really conflicted about this, because on technicalities, I can see it is almost definitely going to be deleted, but it makes me sad to think that it will be. Mabalu (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that allowed on Wikipedia per WP:Canvassing? Seems like a very obvious attempt to influence (or at least consolidate) the AFD outcome, which I think is pretty clearly going to be delete anyway. Mabalu (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We;ve discussed this extensive a few days ago at AN/I. When I started here I tried to look at all afds; then I found myself able to only do it in topics of interest where my !vote might help make a decision in a neglected or uncertain case. I can now do longer even do that, unless someone notifies me, and I have asked those interested to do so. As always, those who ask me cannot predict what I will say. I consider ST sensible, and find myself agreeing with ST a good deal of the time, but I do not look at ST's opinion before deciding my own; in fact, I try not to look atanybody's opinion before deciding, or even look at who it was that nominated it. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain This is the sort of industry for which there does exist some specialized coverage, but I do not have easy access to it. I simply cannot tell--it is possible the firm is notable, and it is also possible that the importance has been exaggerated by the spa author. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've got to agree with DGG here about the uncertainty. It does seem notable since glass buttons from that time period from the UK is rare. Most glass buttons came from Bohemia. The thing is, this article is closely related to textiles and that's not Wikipedia's audience so I don't think it matters much one way or the other. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 06:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a discussion on the talk page:

    This article is about a key figure in the 1940s to 60s British Haute Couture industry and many buyers have requested a page and been suprised that there has ot already been one made. Articles about the said buttons have been in magazines such as Vogue, Interiors and the Sunday Telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistle1127 (talk • contribs)

    I'm not convinced that would satisfy WP:BIO, but will remove the tag. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    That it's been asserted that there have been articles about the buttons in Vogue, Interiors magazine, and The Sunday Telegraph indicate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    I cannot support retention because no citation information has been provided about which articles have discussed the buttons. I cannot support deletion because of FUTON bias and Wikipedia:Offline sources.

    Cunard (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick tcs 04:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the current sourcing and what can be found online (and what was found offline by Mabalu), I don't think this can pass WP:GNG. The old talk page statement found by Cunard is enough to show significance (saving the article from an A7), but, without the actual articles in question, it's not quite enough to prove the necessary notability to keep this article. clpo13(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space. Worldcat shows many possible references . Search as su:buttons. [68]. Someone has to be willing to do the work, of course. I think I've shown it's possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But who's going to do the rewriting? I mean I agree that it probably is notable, however, this type of article just isn't Wikipedia's target audience so maybe Wikipedia ought let this article go so that google searches can focus on providing a better top article. Just a thought! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The argument that just because something isn't for "Wikipedia's target audience" then it probably should be deleted (even if it is likely notable) is one of the most bizarre AFD statements I've ever seen on here. The question is about notability, not whether something is likely to match the requirements of a predetermined group of people. Mabalu (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking is Wikipedia doesn't have anyone with the interest (possibly info) to write a better article than what's already out there. However, from what I can tell, you'd be the best possible choice here to give it a go. And I believe that since google wants to now default to Wikipedia, Wikipedia should begin to take that into consideration seeing as it's pretty well known by now that Wikipedia can only attract certain types editors with the same interests. One evidence of that is the multiple times I encounter editors stating there are no more new articles to create. In fact, a ton of articles are ending up in AfD mainly because they are poorly written more than any other reason. Sure, the article gets tagged as "not notable" but the reality is that tag could be applied to almost anything. Pushing to keep notable articles that the majority of Wikipedia has little to zero knowledge in, is a losing battle since eventually they will be deleted. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to have it in my userspace, although I can't imagine where I'm going to find anything relevant for it as I've already tried several times to find sources. To be honest, I think deletion is inevitable in this particular case, but at least there IS a source out there in the guild journal I could find, so it won't be completely consigned to obscurity. Mabalu (talk) 18:14, 11 December 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Arora Manekar

Bhakti Arora Manekar (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)

Considering that there are over a dozen contestants every season, I don't think there is an assertion of notability at all. There isn't a Wiki page for every winner and runners-up of Masterchef for every country Smarter1 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:52, 28 November 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) –Davey2010Talk 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Simpson

Junior Simpson (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)

Seemingly clear non-notable locally known entertainer as my searches at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam found nothing better than a few expected links and certainly nothing for better notability and improvement. This is even borderline speedy and PROD material but I always like AfD comments anyway. Notifying speedy decliner DESiegel in case he had any input. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How, exactly? He is a well known comedian who was part of The Real McCoy sketch show, has appeared on stand up TV shows such as Live at Jongleurs, Red Light Comedy: Live from Amsterdam, has been a celebrity guest/panellist on Never Mind the Buzzcocks (3 times), Blankety Blank, A Question of TV, Big Brother's Big Mouth, The Comic Side of 7 Days, The One Show, and then there's the half-hour BBC special Respect: A Felix Dexter Special. Pretty obviously notable, and I'm wondering why nobody else seems able to find any of this. Or is nobody else really trying? --Michig (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Logan, Brian (2002-08-20). "All white on the night". theguardian.com. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      Junior Simpson is one of Britain's most successful stand-ups. He is not at Edinburgh this year; he hasn't been since 1998. "Black performers," he says, "look at Edinburgh and at the people who go there, and we feel in the back of our minds that we won't be able to find an audience."

      That is partly because Edinburgh has a tiny black population. "When I was there in 1998," says Simpson, "the black population had increased by 50% - because I was there." But even "at regular comedy nights in London, Manchester, Birmingham or wherever, it's still unusual to see a black performer on the bill."

    2. Daswani, Mansha (1999-01-08). "A trip to the loo launches comic career". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article discusses his beginning as a comedian:

      In his previous calling as a salesman, stand-up comic Junior Simpson would have never believed that a routine trip to the toilet would launch his career in comedy.

      "I went along to a wedding with a girlfriend; she knew the bride and groom, but I didn't. The master of ceremonies got up and said: 'Does anyone else want to say anything on behalf of the bride and groom?' I had got up to go to the toilet, the guy assumed I wanted to say something, and I couldn't really say 'I don't know these people I have to go to the toilet'.

      "I made some stuff up, talked about the day, and the whole place was laughing," said Simpson from London earlier this week.

      The article covers his career:

      His television debut was on the BBC's The Real McCoy in 1994, before going on to Sunday Selection, a variety show in London's Hackney Empire theatre, BBC's The Stand Up Show and Channel 5's Comedy Store. This year he will perform for the third time at the renowned Edinburgh Fringe Festival, a three-week celebration of theatre, comedy, dance and music.

      In addition, the "over 21, under 99"-year-old comic hosts a game show, In The Dark, on Channel 5. The programme has three couples performing a variety of everyday tasks in total darkness. Special cameras allow the studio audience to witness the contestants doing things such as putting make-up on their partner, swapping clothes or bandaging their partner's head.

    3. Hale, Natalie (2007-12-13). "Festive cheer". Bristol Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      Junior honed his material and performance skills on the British black comedy circuit. Soon word started to spread about this bright, young comedian, dubbed "the new Lenny Henry", and within a few years he had become a mainstream success.

      Junior's style is hard to categorise. This, he says, is deliberate. He doesn't want to be stereotyped or confined to a niche market, and it's his desire and ability to metamorphosise that makes him a hit with such a wide range of audiences.

      ...

      Junior's ease at adapting his material means he is also a favourite with producers booking guests for TV shows, from Blankety Blank to Never Mind The Buzzcocks.

      The talented all-rounder has also done some acting work. His TV credits include Holby City and Casualty, while his film appearances include High Heels And Low Lifes, and the hit Brit flick Love Actually, playing the world's worst wedding DJ.

    4. Hale, Natalie (2006-08-17). "Ticking all the boxes". Bristol Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      From wedding speeches to Love Actually, Junior Simpson talks to Natalie Hale about his comedy career Since appearing on the comedy scene, Luton's lapsed choirboy Junior Simpson has quickly established himself as a true "tour de force" live performer.

      ...

      Junior's highest profile role was as the world's worst wedding DJ in British blockbuster Love Actually. But despite the attention he received from appearing in the award-winning, worldwide hit, it's stand-up that still gives the comedian the biggest buzz of all.

    5. Phillips, Melissa (2004-03-10). "Comedy Is a 'Lonely' Job". Guardian Messenger. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      JUNIOR Simpson says it is difficult to make a comedian laugh.

      "The series The Office always makes me howl with laughter, but otherwise it's not that easy to make me laugh," the English funnyman says.

      ...

      Junior says his material is more global comedy and is not specific to a certain area.

      ...

    6. "Accidental comedian". Hendon Times. Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      Junior Simpson got into comedy by accident. The Luton-born comic was walking out of a wedding reception to use the loo, when the MC thought he wanted to make a speech and invited him on to the stage.

      "The only person I knew there was my girlfriend," said the Hackney comedian. "I was just going to say a few things, like best wishes for the future, but then I started talking about relationships and my parents. I went into this stand-up routine. And people were laughing."

      The happy accident has seen the 41-year-old delivering his humourous observations on life on TV and in clubs for the last 11 years.

    7. Bennett, Steve (2002-09-01). "Junior Simpson: Living proof that style often triumphs over content". Chortle. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      Simpson's irresistible energy and evangelical delivery can engage the most jaded of rooms - which is even more of an achievement when you consider the sheer paucity of his material.

      His topics seem stuck in a timewarp, covering such hoary chestnuts as the deep-voiced guy who does cinema ad voiceovers, and he does so with little insight or originality.

      Though his infectious stage manner carries him a long way, it can't overcome the dreary lack of invention that lies where the soul of act should be.

      There is the very occasional funny line, but it all seems like woefully inadequate papering over the gaping holes in his creativity.

    8. "Junior Simpson and others to appear in comedy night at Hertford Theatre". Hertfordshire Mercury. 2014-03-04. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      The former salesman, now 50, joked: "If I had had better bladder control we wouldn’t be having this conversation."

      Junior looks for humour in everyday life and shares stories of his travels.

      ...

      The dad of one, who lives in south Yorkshire, has had many highs and lows in his performing career.

      ...

      A particular highlight was performing to British troops in Iraq alongside Jim Jeffries.

      His lowest point was a show at the Edinburgh Festival, which he completed but was heckled so badly that he left without picking up his coat or the money he was owed.

    9. Hirst, Andrew (2014-01-03). "Comedian Junior Simpson heading for Hebden Bridge". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.

      The article notes:

      With his infectious energy and huge stage presence, it is easy to see why Junior is a circuit favourite.

      He has a boundless joy and exuberance that has audiences hooked with hilarity.

      A true observational comic, Junior finds his humour in the everyday and humdrum with anecdotes of his world travels as a comedian adding a personal originality to his set.

      Junior is a regular headliner at clubs all over the UK and is also in great demand in South Africa and Australia.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Junior Simpson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. NAC WWGB (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restlesslegsyndrome

article already present Twomcvms (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackbombchu: here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_legs_syndrome Twomcvms (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Republic

Radio Republic (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)

Barely notable website. Most of the sources found on Google only mentions the subject. Sixth of March 00:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:01, 28 November 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 Deleted (speedy) as G4, recreation of previously discussed deletion (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2016 pageant

Miss Universe 2016 pageant (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)

Future event with no venue, no date and no reliable sources, failing WP:CRYSTAL. Also yet another attempt to recreate Miss Universe 2016, which was redirected and protected. This pageant was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 65th Miss Universe Pageant three weeks ago. G4 speedy was contested, saying it should go to AfD. So here we are again. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus after the addition of some possible sources to this AFD is that sufficient sources are available to establish notability. These sources do need adding to the article. Davewild (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar van Dillen

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

DELETE. Did I just read that right, this WP:BLP has gone on unsourced since September 2007 and has yet to be deleted? How does that happen, exactly. Google News Archives returns no more than 4 unique matches, none of which appear to be reach the level of significant coverage I would expect for any biography. Fail. JBsupreme (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Clearly nobody cares about the article, just like so many other unsourced BLPs on Wikipedia. No one will miss it if it's gone, because it doesn't belong here anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The news stories on Google news (not the best place to find Dutch news stories, it must be said) indicate that he has some minor celebrity as a contemporary composer and slightly more as a wikipedian (founder and first president of the Dutch wikipedia association, a former member of the board of trustees of the wikimedia foundation). Only one of the articles was really substantially about him; another quotes him in a story about wikipedia; another is an interview with a musician, whose concert was going to include a piece by van Dillen. I don't know enough about the scene to say whether he'd meet WP:MUSIC. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah. I can't read Dutch per se, but between the cognates and other key words, you're right about the coverage. I think the fact that the Dutch WP doesn't have an article on him is telling, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're wrong there: nl:Oscar van Dillen. Though he may not be the second coming of Mozart, I'd say he's notable as a modern composer, at least in the Netherlands. Wutsje (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks pretty weak. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Cybele and Etcetera are substantial labels in the contemporary classical world then he meets WP:MUSIC; if not then he might meet some other criterium of notability, but I don't immediately see what it would be. Is there a classical music project who could advise? --Paularblaster (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't resist Posting a comment on a AfD request with a part of your username in it could you? The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone uses their full name in their user name, and it would be inappropriate for us to retitle the article to "Oscar" just because that's apparently the only name you know him by. ;) Lara 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sourcing requires research, i just provided some more info to evaluate, but take no stand in the AfD. very best, oscar (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Questionably notable living person should be deleted. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added some data from the nl-wikipedia article. The guy even was nominated for the Dutch equivalent of the movie Oscar in NL. If he would not have been on the wm board no one would perhaps even doubt his notability <sigh>. He can't help he was on that board but he *is* quite a notable composer and musician. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film

List of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (2nd nomination)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.

It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.

Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.

My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @Feedback: @Jaxsonjo: @SummerPhD: @Postdlf: @Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @Lapadite77: recommended. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the nominator demonstrates, the grouping (and in particular, the selection of the Critics' Choice award over all other critics' awards) is subjective and arbitrary. Here's a source that lists the "three most prestigious critics groups" in this context and doesn't mention the Critics' Choice award at all.
    I did in fact find some sources that mention specific actors/actresses as having won these five specific awards – quite possibly inspired by the existence of this article; namely this source and this source. But I'm not very convinced by these sources, and any treatment of these actors as a group is minimal. (By contrast, this source clearly treats actors who have won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for the same performance as a group.)
    List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film, the twin of this article, should also be deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "cousin" of this page about television List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television. Anyway I also thought that New York Film Critics Circle and LA and National Society were more prestigious critics' awards, as your source says. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get what this article is trying to do, but it would better just to have an article "list of film performances considered the best", which unlike this article would apply to each mention contemporaneously without being biased by selecting contemporary film awards.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's another thing I'm concerned about, I don't want wikipedia to create "facts on the ground". None of your sources mentioning those awards grouped together precede the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, if this gets deleted (as Sideways pointed out) then so should List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film and possibly this List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television (though the latter might need a new thread, but it's similarly arbitrary). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 00:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Cocu

Bert Cocu (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 rower. Quick google search for him only finds social media accounts and a staff list at the Melbourne University Boat Club, and this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereppy (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Cocu has won a prize from the Royal Dutch Rowing Federation in 2004, following that year's results at the Summer Olympics [69], but that was the only fact I could find that would perhaps support notability. – Editør (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 26 December 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_November_28&oldid=692877777"