Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 25: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:09, 2 December 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venomiss

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

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the article is simply not convincingly better enough and my searches also found nothing better. Notifying tagger DESiegel in case he has any comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything that shows how this artist meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 15:12, 9 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 Delete !vote like myself couldn't find anything yet stuff has turned up so it kinda makes both are !votes Moot, Sourcing isn't amazing but meh they're not mentions so I'm happy!, Thanks Tomwsulcer) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Alexander (newsreader)

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

Non notable newsreader, The 2 cites in the article are simply mentions, and as far as I'm aware the "FindMyPast" shouldn't be used as cites, Searched on Google & Highbeam and found nothing, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a few stories on Google News, but they seem to all be about different people named Lucy Alexander. More specific searches turn up nothing usable. It's possible there are hits that I didn't see because of aggressive filtering of false positives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources: in-depth here, coverage here, here, here, easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find .... but there's one problem .... Dailymail can't be used in any article unfortunately .... So you take away DM and all's you have is The Guardian ... So unfortunately she doesn't pass GNG unless you or someone can find something else, –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the Daily Mail can't be used? Do you think anything in the article is wrong?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Note: the Daily Mail has over a million circulation, whether it's a "tabloid" or not, it is a credible source for this type of article -- about an on-air TV personality (ie entertainment), which tabloids are usually good at.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly I can't find it but I read somewhere it shouldn't be used, If I can be used I'll happily withdraw but I'll ask at the help desk . –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree the DM shouldn't be trusted for technical subjects, but for entertainment -- that's what they're all about. What about Hello magazine? Or what about this source?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was 2-3 years I saw it but I vaguely remember it was something about them making stuff up and that they shouldn't be trusted but I can't recall where I even read it as it was a long time ago , Well I've used Metro and Hello for others so perfect thank you :), I'll withdraw in a minute, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 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 per G5' Materialscientist (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nollywood Trademark

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

As it stands, the article is a plain description about the categories this trademark is active under, but it makes no clear assertion whether the trademark or brand is notable. The only reliable sources I could come up with for this was the registrated with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Of note: there was also a brief discussion regarding this trademark on the Nollywood talk page. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:25, 25 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 Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

No indication of notability; sources are all D&D game manuals. A WP:BEFORE check turns up the usual. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), where it's already listed. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. However, it's not easy to research, as both D&D and Greek mythology are popular topics. If there's any third-party, secondary coverage, it can be briefly summarized in pegasus. I don't think we need an embedded D&D fansite inside Wikipedia when Wikia is perfectly suitable for such topics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NinjaPirateRobot. Artw (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NinjaPirateRobot. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:07, 15 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. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boys' Brigade companies in Singapore

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

List of non-notable youth organisation companies. Fram (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists should be for notable things, people or organisations. None of the units in this list are notable and their current existence is not clear. This information can probably be found on a BB site. It should be deleted from WP. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable list of non-notable minor organizations. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:42, 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 speedily deleted by User:JamesBWatson under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 18:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adryenn Ashley

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

Twice deleted article about a subject whose only significant coverage comes from press releases and IMDB. Fails WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, so User:Materialscientist has protected this page so we shouldn't have a 4th iteration of it, unless they mess with the casing or spelling (as they often do). For future reference, Materialscientist has also added the SPAs who created, removed deletion tags and supported the article on talk pages to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TejaswaChaudhary. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 25 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. Does not have in-depth coverage from reliable sources that is sufficient to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSLRA

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

Seems to fail WP:NGO. Most news sources cited only contain a passing mention of the org's founder. Note: Analysed the major contributor's edits, less likely a WP:SPA and more likely done in good faith ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this might be a case of WP:COI. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir here in India; mainly in litigation sector hardly any litigation is entertained by Courts in names of organizations. They are generally entertained in the names of persons. This being a new organization; might have engaged into filing of matters in the name of their founders. Nevertheless the same is a good resource. So it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srin2015 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However yet; in case you think that the page is not important enough; I personally request the same be removed.Srin2015 (talk) 16:45, 21 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) 20:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a comprehensive enough data to understand the functioning of an NGO. In India generally courts do not give permissions to file matter through NGOs and they are filed through their employees or any other case. So, merely stating that the cases (all come from official sites of the Courts) have been filed by founder doesn't quantify the same to be bare references as all of them are original and official Court resources. Rest references from media are from respected media houses of India. I strongly differ with the above discussion. 124.253.33.248 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--no good indication this is a notable outfit, no secondary sources proving it. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 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. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foothills Alliance Church

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

Unremarkable local church. Article was dePROD by creator Neelix previously, so per policy it goes to AfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be notable, article is an essentially unexpandable stub. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It looks like a typically NN local church to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Super lame fluff piece. A couple of the sources are actually display advertisements in the local newspaper. Fails GNG and should have been allowed to go away via its rightful assignment to PROD. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could've been speedily deleted as an A7, since it carries no meaningful claim of importance. Also, while the text could be fixed, as is, it does read mostly like a (harmless) plug. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable local church. Just more of Neelix's promo work. Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Month of Photography Asia

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

Questionably notable and improvable as it seems it may not even actually exist anymore (coverage about it seems to end in about 2012) and my searches found nothing better than this, this and then at Singapore news websites Business Times, The New Paper, The Straits Times, Today and InSing (although I found it was simply a local travel guide) as well as AsiaOne where I found the same link listed here. This simply hasn't changed much since starting in September 2010 and there's especially none happening if it's now non-existent and never even got lasting coverage. It also seems obvious this was mostly contributed by the festival people so it almost looks more like a personal webpage rather than a formal encyclopedia article (any more different and promotional and I would've simply speedied). Notifying author Raphaël Millet and past user Lopifalko. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll come back to you on this when I get an opportunity. -Lopifalko (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether it exists now or not seems irrelevant, the point is whether notability is demonstrated. I added a ref from Asian Correspondent, and removed some non-notable details. It reads as a fairly matter-of-fact declaration of the facts of the festival. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering this has been relisted and I'm not sure how this is going to end either way, I'm notifying photography users Joe Decker, Ukexpat, Dennis Bratland and Donnie Park who may have some insight with this and also DGG who asks to be notified where he can help AfDs with low traffic. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hoary likewise. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Insufficient basis for notability. In any case the article is worded promotionally, as usually the case for an article for an exhibition that tries to list everyone exhibited. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have cleaned it up more, and addressed DGG's concern over listing everyone exhibited by removing that list, leaving only the solo exhibitions. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty horrible when first nominated; a lot better now, thanks to good work (flab removal, sourcing) by Lopifalko. Presumably created and maintained for promotional purposes, but then this is true of a huge number of articles hereabouts, and the problem is not of how promotional it was but of how promotional it's doomed to be. It's less than stellar now and indeed may deteriorate, but then this is true of well over half of the articles here. Though still not great, sourcing isn't bad and all in all it deserves to live on. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently described by independent sources. Now a sufficiently objective description of the event. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep now that it's been fixed. I'd suggest going a little further are removing those participants who are not notable enough to have articles of their own, as is usually our practice in such lists. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture (US band)

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

Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable band article as my searches found nothing better at all to suggest solid notability and the other band article As Friends Rust has also been nominated (even the third band Morning Again also seems questionably notable and improvable). Notifying author HDS and past users Davidwr, Michig and Lugnuts. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per first AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now pending more information - the two musicians mentioned as "notable" in the first AFD are arguably not notable. I don't have time to assess this right now, but it would help a lot if we could point to two (or more) musicians in the group and say they clearly met WP:MUSIC and keep the article, OR if we could point to all but one of the musicians in the group and say they clearly fail to meet WP:MUSIC and delete the article (or find some other reason that the topic is notable other than "it has two notable members"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I haven't had time to research this but if this AFD closes with just the nom, my comment, and the comment above it, I recommend against a "keep" close and recommend for a close of "no consensus." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:30, 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) 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the author of this article has been informed of the issues regarding this band's notability in 2008[1] and has been nominated for deletion in 2008[2], 2010 [3] and 2015[4]. The author has done naught to improve the article to the point that it has actually had an AfD article to a conclusive Keep. Lack of activity on the AfD discussion pages indicates a lack of credible interest in this article as opposed to the ambivalence of those taking part in the conversations. User:HDS has a bit of a history creating Walled Garden articles relating to obscure bands in the Florida hardcore, punk and metalcore scenes that fail to pass WP:NMUSIC, and referencing the "What Links Here?" page shows that. Abovethestorm (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage (none that I can find, really) in reliable, secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastview Community Church

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

Local church in Winnipeg, no serious claim to significance except they hosted a discussion in response to Neelix's favorite play She Has a Name, and therefore graduated into being part of his walled garden of articles around sex trafficking. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I corrected the link so it directed the relevant article, rather than displaying a red link. Harrias ^talk 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They didn't even host the play, they "hosted a discussion with three human trafficking experts". (Only two of them are named in the article; given who the author is, I can hazard a guess who the third one was.) Wikipedia isn't a directory of churches; unless there's something to suggest that this church has any architectural or historic significance, it should at most be a very brief mention in River East. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've updated the nom with the italics words. Thanks for fixing the link capitalization. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline speedy, seen one church, seen 'em all. No obvious indication it has lasting importance beyond the local community. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Utterly unsurprised to see a connection to She Has a Name. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I have a soft spot in my heart for Brethren churches, this could've been speedily deleted as an A7 since it makes no claim of importance. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable local church. Just more of Neelix's promo work. Softlavender (talk) 19:22, 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 A3 (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Theurer

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

Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:03, 25 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. There are non-trivial sources and a consensus to keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloem

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. I could not find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Edcolins (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several of the references cited are discussions of the novel approach to patent literature from this company, in independent sources (eg this and this. Article is being edited by a new editor whom I have been trying to guide, and who informs me she has no COI. Is VentureBeat (this a reliable source? PamD 23:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references appear to show two bursts of short-lived coverage, one in October 2014[5][6][7] and another one in February 2015 [8][9][10][11]. The coverage isn't deep however, mostly short and anecdotal, in blog posts, self-published pieces and the like. I don't think the VentureBeat guest post qualifies as a reliable source. The company seems to have received very little notice from independent sources. --Edcolins (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it :) I'm a new user so I'm fuguring out every day a bit more - trying to make this article more informative and less advertising - which I still don't feel like it sounds like an ad, probably just my style of writing as I studied this subject - can't keep the author out of my mind - however, I would be very grateful for your help so that this article can remain on wikipedia - it'd be really sad if this subject wont be explained and the reformation of the whole patent system would slow down. There are probably quite a lot of people our there considering cloem a great invention - as I found it on the web, too - but they're just to confused about how to promote this idea - without actual goals of marketing or selling it but just inform others. It just happens that I decided to give it a try on wikipedia - which looks like I'm not good at :/ Samira RZ (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How great you think the idea might be is fully irrelevant to decide whether to keep the article. See WP:VALINFO and WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Edcolins (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ORG is an irrelevance. The subject here is not the commercial organisation behind this project, it is the novel concept that they are applying: "brutalizating the permutation space" of patent claims. This is also a new article, by a new editor, who is actively working on it. We are not supposed to be so working to be so actively anti-knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the article is about a company, not about the concept of "algorithmic patenting". --Edcolins (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, maybe if it does fail WP:ORG, it could be repurposed as a main article algorithmic patenting, if that's notable enough? A very interesting concept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was certainly clearer before these edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Edcolins (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if this can improved considerably, if not, simply draft and userfy until then. If more eyes are needed to look at this later, it can be nominated again. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 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. joe decker ^talk 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mahmood Quadri

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

Re-submitting for deletion discussion as the previous discussion received no contributions whatsoever. Rationale: does not satisfy WP:BIO. Google, with a total of 15 (!) search results, does not point to any mentions in independent sources. The article text also does not offer anything that would justify keeping the article either. Additionally, the main contributor is likely to have a conflict of interest (same surname). kashmiri ^TALK 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Delete'. I assume most of the references are in Urdu and proper search need to be done in Urdu. So, delete, unless there are Urdu speakers that may provide proper references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone with access to deleted content check to see whether this is a variant of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abul Fazl Syed Mahmood Quadri less than a month ago. Online mirrors suggest that it is. Otherwise, I'm not comfortable deleting an article merely because the available sourcing isn't English-language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like the same bloke. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least until a better informative and better sourced article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on consensus to delete Abul Fazl Syed Mahmoud Quadri.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. It looks like a new article on the same subject rather than a copy of the deleted one, but I see no reason for a different outcome, and recreation after only a month suggests that whoever is pushing this article here is unwilling to live with the consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be fair, I don't see any recreation efforts, the article dates back to 2010. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 12:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than relatives writing about him, and alumni blubs, I don't see any coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 06:13, 9 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 17:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quran code

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

No indication of notability that doesn't loop back to the author. Other claims all violate WP:SYNTH. I can see a page for numerical analysis of the Quran in general, but this is too specific. Richfife (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 18:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added a more reliable source to establish notability, although it is a bit unfortunate that we have to resort to primary sources for a more detailed discussion of the subject. The article could use a good clean-up, or else a redirect to Submitters. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because this is in relation to a specific mathematical code which is allegedly all encompassing and based on the number 19. There are numerous non-original sources discussing the topic. The sources for these have been supplied in the talk section of this. Navidfa (talk) 22:19, 8 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 07:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kojo Yankson

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I really don't see anything special in traveling within West African countries to report cases of Ebola outbreak. He's only doing his job. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 18:38, 25 November 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, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 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. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Shakoor Baloch

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

Non professional referee. Limited (1) references and that is routine match cover only. Egghead06 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The position of referee does not immediately confer notability. A quick Google search doesn't turn up enough information to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence is notable, both 'references' are dead links. Eldumpo (talk) 21:39, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zanjirani Farahani

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. References all mention him only in passing, with no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Article was speedy deleted once already. Norvoid (talk) 17:46, 25 November 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, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single trivial hit in News; nothing in Newspapers, Books, Highbeam or Scholars. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Nursery Rhymes

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

A video release from 1991 for which I cannot find reliable or significant sources to establish any kind of notability for it. There's a mention of the release in the Darren Day artice but provides only an Amazon link, but I don't think this warrants a redirect. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:42, 25 November 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, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:RS. Not all straight-to-video films are notable. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 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! 00:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any reliable secondary coverage for this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:58, 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 keep. Reason for nomination is fuzzy, and topic is clearly notable (although I agree that the article needs work). AfD is not cleanup. Miniapolis 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist_mythology

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buddhist mythology

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

Delete - Article's subject covered by many other articles. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment VictoriaGrayson, I respect the argument that the content is covered elsewhere, but could you elaborate on a) which those articles are, and b) why this cannot simply be boldly merged into one of those? We definitely have a bit of a problem with redundancy, but I would like to see evidence of that before I cast my !vote. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose she means to refer to the very detailed Talk:Buddhist_mythology#This_article_has_nothing_to_do_with_mythology._It_should_be_deleted_and_started_again.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. This is definitely a real thing[12]. The topic is a real topic. If the topic is not covered well here and is covered somewhere else than the article should be redirected to that place, but the topic should have an entry.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Procedural close. This proposal is little better than a hit-and-run tagging. There was no evidence offered that this subject is “covered by many other articles” (and none from the nominator subsequently, after a month of asking), but even if there was, this is not grounds for deletion but for a merger. There is no suggestion that the subject lacks notability, or that it libels a living person, or matches any of the other reasons for deletion.

As for the comment linked from the article talk page, that isn't a justification for deletion either, but a proposal for a re-write on the subject at the current title.

So No, and this should be binned tout de suite before anybody else wastes any time on it. Moonraker12 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 two keep votes, only one presents some sort of argument, but that is based on the supposed notability of the award, for which I find no support in the AfD. The other keep vote presents no valid argument at all in terms of policy. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Makkar

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

Seems WP:BLP1E: one of around 500 teenagers to have won the National Child Award for Exceptional Achievement since 1995. Rest of the sources about him starting a company and getting good grades are WP:PRIMARY. McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is one of the 500 awardees, but from a country of 1.2 billion people with more than 500 million youth. Making him Among the top 0.000001% of Indian students. While scanning through the profiles of other awardees, he has achieved much more than others and haas frequently been featured on Indian media on television channels and Radio. I was rather surprised to find that I couldn't find anything about him on wiki. JkChanM (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much that can really be described as independent secondary sources showing notability as per W:GNG, and the references on the page are complete rubbish. Unless someone can find something considerably more substantial, I'm going to say delete.JMWt (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found a few more coverage links like the currently listed but certainly nothing much better. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is at times not possible to have online links and online content of the other published articles in newspapers citing him as a young entrepreneur and other things but I must verify his notability at national level. The page must ' not be deleted . We should encourage the pages spreading awareness of young achievers and future leaders of the world.Kiwipot (Kiwipot|talk)— Kiwipot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was keep. Article is signaled as problematic (and not just in terms of cleanup), but this AfD finds no consensus to delete and some pretty strong keep votes--and that makes the decision clear. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of female action heroes

AfDs for this article:

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

As it stands, this list contains an indiscernible mix of real people and fictional characters. Are we saying that any woman who is an athlete is an action hero? Any woman who is a movie star and appears in some action films (or parodies thereof)? Any female fictional character who takes some heroic action at some point in their fictional universe? This was nominated for deletion in 2011; the problems raised then regarding original research, subjectivity, and lack of sources, remain unresolved. bd2412 T 16:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. As original nom in 2011, I still contend that this list fails WP:LSC. The criteria for inclusion is unclear. Much of the list is unsourced. There are redundant entries. And included entries seem to contradict each other a little. One part is a list of real actresses that have played roles that could be considered by some as "action heroes" while another part is the characters. Which are we talking about? I previously removed a bunch that were "action heroes" because in one episode they punched someone or shot a gun. It's worth noting that the male version of this list was nominated at the same time and deleted. [13] This one has the same issues as it did 4 years ago and, in some aspects, has gotten worse. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs major cleanup. The concept of female action heroes in fiction is a completely fair topic, however, that should be a definition of the character from third-party sources. The list of actresses in this should not be present, and the remaining entries should all either be blue links to a notable character page where it is clear the character is an action hero, or a source on non-notable characters that affirms the character is an action hero. The inability to keep it maintained well is not really a fair argument to delete, just that it needs more eyes to keep it maintained. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the topic might be notable, the list completely lacks inclusion criteria. Police brutality is a notable topic too, but that didn't keep that list from being deleted and the deletion affirmed in DELREV. Too many things are included here just because some reviewers used the term "action hero" in passing and that's problematic. WP:TNT argues that sometimes starting over is the answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to argue that the Police brutality list (which I just looked over the XFD and DRV arguments) is a very different case, for two major reasons: first, that the labelling appeared to be at the discretion of editors rather than sources, and second, that there's BLP and related issues in calling some acts as police brutality if there is no clear way to discern this from sources. It thus makes for a very problematic list, and as the DRV noted, the concensus to overtune was mixed. I get a read that the list could be recreated iff there was a stronger inclusion metric. In this case, calling a female character an action hero is in no way anywhere close to BLP, but does require sourcing to affirm that that character should be treated as such, which is missing here. I don't see a problem if that a character is called an action hero by just one normally-reliable review source, as long as that's a requirement to be included. I suspect the list will not be as bad as it is now if one applies that standard, as there's a lot of characters that are coming from works that don't have as much significance (like anime) in most English press to gain that type of terminology on a per-character basis. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the comparison was that merely being a notable topic isn't what we should be looking at. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic itself is surely notable ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18]), but I don't quite see the point in listing a bunch of fictional characters. It doesn't help to illustrate the topic or serve any real encyclopedic purpose that I can think of. Isn't this what TV Tropes is for? And yet just about pop culture topic on Wikipedia has a list associated with it, and it's probably possible to find some kind of sourcing for this. So, I guess either result is fine: rewrite or deletion. If the debate closes as "keep but rewrite", then I guess I'll try to remember to work on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, I can help you out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to being an wp:indiscriminate list of anybody who appeared in an action film regardless as an support actress or have just once. The bigger problem is that it is unsourced, plus Bridget Jones and Gwen Stacy a full-on action star? Also Jennifer Lawrence and Scarlett Johansson is listed for (legitimately) being in just one franchise that qualify them as such, are we going to list Harry Potter as an action hero next? (oh yeah, it has) Also get rid of action hero as well for the same reason. Donnie Park (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN as there are dozens of books about it including:

Gender Schema Theory and the Tough Female Action-hero
Super Bitches and Action Babes: the female hero in popular cinema
The Female Action Hero in Film
Female Action Heroes: a guide to women in comics, video games, film, and television
Fight Like a Girl: The Female Action Hero in Hollywood
Women Willing to Fight: The Fighting Woman in Film
Action Chicks: New Images of Tough Women in Popular Culture
Modern Amazons: Warrior Women on Screen
The Warrior Women of Television: A Feminist Cultural Analysis of the New Female Body in Popular Media
Reel Knockouts: Violent Women in Film
The Violent Woman as a New Theatrical Character Type

The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. AFD is still not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the concept of a Female action hero, which could use an article based on those sources, and a List of them, which would require the determination of objective standards of inclusion. bd2412 T 18:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no great difference. To work on any topic at any level, you obviously have to have some idea of what it is or what it means but you could say that about anything. It doesn't seem be a significant problem in this case because we have numerous sources to draw from. These sources list major examples such as Sarah Connor — no problemo. Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources listing archetypal examples, or purporting to offer exhaustive (or at least authoritative) lists? A list limited to examples noted in sources, even though the type is not usually noted, is likely to be incomplete and unable to be completed. An incomplete group of sourced examples seems more suited for a "noted examples of" section in an article. bd2412 T 22:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Different sources will approach the topic in different ways. Again, this is quite normal for all topics and so is not a problem. Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BD214 is correct, there is a difference between the notability of an article on the concept of a female action hero and a largely unsourced list of haphazard names. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, BD2412 is just raising facile objections which are easily addressed by ordinary editing. The only problem is the usual one of no-one being prepared to do any serious, hard work but that's quite normal on Wikipedia where 99% of our content is not of good quality. None of this amounts to a reason to delete because the page does, in fact, contain numerous substantial sources. Please start using them. Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, saying nobody is willing to do work is nonsense. I spent time on that article years ago, trying to clean up duplication and eliminate obviously wrong entries. Even tried to maintain it for a while, but the list is a magnet for fanboys and I'm not going to make the list a full time job. Second, instead of complaining about the work others aren't doing, I'll ask what you've done to improve the article. You know what else is very common on Wikipedia? Editors who vote to keep an article with the claim that all the article needs is improvement and then never does the hard work of improving it. See WP:SEP. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, the "ordinary editing" that I will do is to delete every unsourced statement in the article, split it into three sub-articles (one for a list of sourced actresses who play action heroines, one for a list of fictional action heroine characters, and one for the concept of the female action hero, to which the "further reading" will go), and to semi-protect those pages to prevent "fanboys" from making unsourced additions, which will then need to go through the respective talk pages to be added. bd2412 T 16:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep as a notable list topic (having implemented two list sources just now) per WP:NOTESAL. The article is indeed largely a mess, but it is so easy to find sources that we can all contribute a few referenced names, remove the unsourced content and link to it on the talk page in case anyone wants to do further research. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This is a useful list topic, but at the moment it seems too unfocussed. I vote to come up with strict inclusion criteria (which I am unqualified to do) and then clean up the list based on that. If that's too hard, my second choice is to rework it into a category, possibly with subcategories. De Guerre (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup – Passes WP:LISTN, because female action heroes have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. See source examples posted above by Andrew Davidson for starters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 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 merge to Last Week Tonight. That notability is not temporary isn't a reason for keeping, since notability is not yet established, as is clear from this AfD. Sources exist, sure, but source alone don't establish we should have an article on a given topic. If the current article is too big to merge, then trim it. No arguments are presented that evidence a breadth and depth of coverage, but since some sourcing exists, merge is a viable option. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff the Diseased Lung

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

While the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources (as shown on its talk page), such amount of articles are quite typical for main segment topics of "Last Week Tonight", one of which Jeff is part of, and the article could fail notability in the long run. Prhdbt [talk] 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator). This character has received coverage by independent reliable sources (WP:GNG) around the world. We should be encouraging the article's expansion, not eliminating it altogether. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Jeff has received coverage beyond just the week after the episode aired:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/247436/what-marketers-can-learn-from-john-oliver.html, discusses Oliver's successful marketing practices (April)
http://dailycollegian.com/2015/04/16/why-last-week-tonight-is-the-new-champion-of-sanity-in-fake-news/ (April)

Most importantly, the segment and character are credited for putting PMI's 'Be Marlboro' campaign into the spotlight. See this Consumerist article for extensive coverage. I think the impact of Oliver's segment and this character are being overlooked. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps merge into Last Week Tonight I see this character a lot like the Masturbating Bear or Pimpbot 5000 from Conan O'Brien's show. While it got coverage from the other night, I don't think this will have long lasting effect to maintain a full article. If there was a section dedicated to characters/bits on the LWT page though I could see this as being a part of that section. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Flawed nomination. The nominator acknowledges notability by stating that "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources", and then states that the subject of the article "could fail notability in the long run". This contradicts WP:NTEMP which states that Notability is not temporary. 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sometimes the sky is blue (talk • contribs)

Merge to the show's article. There are plenty of sources sure, but none that establish notability that is independent of the show. Everything is tied into the point Oliver was making on the show. This is similar to a member of a rock band. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of members of rock bands with their own Wikipedia articles. And does the same argument hold for Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption (which, by the way, was kept)? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the band member point: yes, there are plenty of members of rock bands with their own Wikipedia article. But there are also plenty more that do not have their own article because they are not independently notable away from the band. That's the key point, independent notability. Every single source you have posted in the article's talk page mentions John Oliver's name. That demonstrates how closely this character is tied to his show, and should therefore be a section on the show's article.

As for the church you raise, that is an entirely different scenario involving a legally registered organization, so you are straying into an "other stuff exists" argument. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, the sources mention Oliver as the character's creator, but that does not mean Jeff isn't independently notable. I assume all of the Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption sources mention Oliver, too. With a bit of expansion, this article could have Background, Description, Response by PMI, and Reception sections, which would make it too long to fit into the TV show article. I think this article's current state is enough to justify forking and there are many more sources to further expand the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...but that does not mean Jeff isn't independently notable." Sure is easy to say that, but where is this notability?

Look at the large quote from the company in the "Response" section of the article. It is addressing the show and the contents of the segment in question, not the character per se. The character was one part of the segment, and the company's response is to the segment, not the character. I agree that at a certain point it may be necessary to fork the contents if it becomes too large. I don't think it is at that point yet but if it was, a more appropriate title would be about the episode or segment of the show, not just the character. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there are plenty of sources about Jeff to justify an article, but I wouldn't be opposed to Wikipedia having an article about the episode or segment. If others here agree that the episode/segment/character are notable (regardless of which), then this deletion discussion is unnecessary and we should simply be discussing the name of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as not notable outside the context of the show. It might warrant a line or two in the article on the show. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes no sense to merge. It would either be outsized (disproportionate) on the show's page or if we cut it much info would be lost. This page was already written and is fine, no reason to ditch it. Besides, I smell special interests behind the proposal to delete this. Lastdingo (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Special interests"? You should be careful making vague accusations such as that. The plain fact of the matter is that this is an encyclopedia, not a running commentary for every gimmick from every TV show that gets mentioned in the press. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:19, 27 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beard Meats Food

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

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not encyclopaedic, fails WP:NOTNEWS JMHamo (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This competitive eater passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. As a side note, the subject has received coverage for more than one event, so WP:BLP1E is not applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Watch 'Beard Meats Food' competitive eater bag world record by scoffing 17 Big Macs in just one hour". mirror.
^ "Competitive eater fails epic food challenge by a single pot of beans". dailyrecord.
^ "Adam scoffs 5,500-calorie fish&chips supper in just 12 mins - Weird News - Funny, Strange & Bizarre UK News Stories - Daily Star". Dailystar.co.uk.
^ "YouTuber Adam Moran of Beardmeatsfood sets world record by eating 17 Big Macs in an hour - Metro News". Metro.
^ "Could you complete the Widowmaker hotdog challenge at Ox and Bone, Huddersfield? Leeds competitive eater sets a new record!". huddersfieldexaminer.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Rayalaseema

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

Purely invented, no notablity, WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: it might or might not become a recognized region, but apparently, it is not one now. LjL (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:47, 17 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} 14:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and LjL - Difficult to research, but couldn't find enough in-depth coverage to show this is an actual recognized region. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:15, 25 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 18:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kochavi

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

Subject has coverage only in tabloid media that are not considered as reliable references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Ireneshih (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet WP:RS because there is "no significant coverage".Pixarh (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article live because he has repeating "significant coverage" in Israeli media including Israel HaYom and other papers. --Vangk93 (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see no convincingly better improvement aside from some News and browsers links and I would've also suggested restoring the original 2011 redirect but I'm not seeing how and why it should (different name and no obvious connection between the two). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It is not clear why there was a redirect, it is a clear delete.Ireneshih (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , WP:RS is met with Yisrael Hayom, that is not a tabloid, and I think the subject does meet BIO and notability, it could certainly use some enhancement but the subject matter and content don't meet the criteria set forth in the nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously self-promotion, fails GNG. The only serious coverage is a short article in a second-rate Israeli newspaper. The rest are trendy media websites. A quick googling in Hebrew revealed that his name has some 3,000 hits (including social media, forums etc.), but even that he shares with some college professor named Hanna Amit-Kochavi who seems more notable. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 07:33, 10 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. No valid policy-based arguments to keep are presented. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Di-Cypher

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

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

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

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

Heavily promotional article of a newly formed company of questionable notability. The sources are mainly primary (the companies own website, or self entries) with the only one of any interest (CNN) does not even mention the company. Claims are not supported by any reliable third party references. This article had been heavily tagged with issues (advert, coi, peacock, primary sources, one source, disputed) by more than one editor including a speedy by myself but the result was just a continuous deletion of tags without any attempt to address the issue. Tag deletion is not a reason for AfD I know just the timing.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. Nothing on Highbeam or Questia, Google just returns the usual social media. A company going about its business; no encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A good article on a company. Google returns with social media links to fighters and celebrates that use this company. A company going about its business; good encyclopaedic notability must add MMA, Life Coaching, Negotiations, and a few services with a mix of the word Di-Cypher and good articles pop up; news; etc. Comoncents85 (talk 5:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better than the currently listed links and that's certainly saying something, absolutely no in-depth third-party sources. Notifying tagger JamesG5. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 26 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) ansh 666 03:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Tajima

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

Fails WP:BIO1E. Since as few as 10% of people over 110 are identified, it is not credible to say this is the 4th oldest person in the world. Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure if WP:BIO1E even applies here, or if it was intended for articles like this one. But even with that, there are 4 notabilities in the article, not just one. MarkYabloko 10:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to list of Japanese super-cents. EEng (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) [Later clarification]: ... per WP:NOPAGE.[reply]
Strong Keep She is one of slight survivors of born in the 19th century and one of oldest Japanese ever. She is still alive, there are possibility that become world's oldest person or oldest Japanese person ever in the near future. 4th oldest person out of 7.2 billion people is not notable? I don't think.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep Japan's koseki family registry system is very thorough and has been for a long, long time. So even if the nominator's bold assertion that there could be another 30-40 undocumented people in the world that are older than her is true, we can still be quite certain that she is the oldest person in Japan. That alone is surely notable and has been addressed in multiple sources within the article. Because you need Koseki documents to do anything related to government services in the country, anybody older than her in Japan would have to have been living in a cave for the past 110+ years. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is pretty bad, there were over 200,000 deaths not reported for people listed as over 100, so that people could keep collecting the pensions of their parents. More than 230,000 Japanese people listed as 100 years old cannot be located and many may have died decades ago. Japan is listed as having the highest longevity, but this puts the number in doubt. In the US it is a crime to not report a death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is correct, but it does not change the fact that it is very thorough in regards to recording when people were born, which is the important part in the context of this discussion. By the way, the last paragraph of your source says that it does not put the longevity figures in doubt. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is remarkably clear. Sure, somebody may have run the 100m faster than Usain Bolt, and someone may have conceived of the Theory of Relativity before Albert Einstein, but being documented and covered in reliable and verifiable sources is what Wikipedia is all about; Woulda, coulda, mighta arguments about who the "real" oldest person may be are just irrelevant ponderings. The breadth and scope of the article provide appropriately significant coverage of the individual and the existence of five parallel articles in our partner projects in French, Dutch, Japanese, Russian and Finnish all demonstrate the international recognition she has received. What exactly is the BIO1E that she is famous for? When did that event occur? Alansohn (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not really sure what the deletion rational is, something like There are known knowns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long history of Japan and the country's long history of turning out old people, how can these claims be proven? "Tajima is the 5th oldest Japanese person ever, the 4th oldest Japanese woman ever and the longest lived person ever in Kyushu." Bolt's speed record is different - everyone is clear that this is for running in a modern competition. We don't say he is the fastest person ever. All you can say about this oldest person is that she is the oldest in Japan that has good records. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) ""[reply]

We don't say he is the "fastest person ever"? Would you like to check the second sentence of the lead? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the Usain Bolt article does say that. And I've tagged it ^{[citation needed]} since I don't see what in the article supports that claim, nor do I see what possible source ever could. It's an absurd statement, just as "oldest person in country X ever" is absurd. EEng (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng and company fail to understand the essence of the issue. We are not here to prove truth. We write articles and make assertions in them based on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources. The Guardian describes Bolt being "regarded as the fastest person ever", one of thousands of sources with similar characterizations available to source the statement. No one has run every individual on Earth against Bolt, and the word "ever" covers a very long period of time, with billions of the dearly departed who have never raced against the "fastest person ever". Bolt's achievements are based on the standards of the records and data available. So to for Tajima and the other individuals described as being among the world's oldest. We can safely disregard the chirping that there might be other people older (or faster or taller or whatever) than those cited as such in Wikipedia articles based on reliable and verifiable sources. It is the disregard for these reliably sourced characterizations that is absurd and in direct conflict with bedrock Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When The Guardian says he's the "fastest person ever", they know their readers will understand that to mean the fastest known person ever. Newspapers are allowed to take imprecise shortcuts like that. We're not. EEng (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's your job to decide what's the truth, and your decision is final. You've twisted causality here; That's not how Wikipedia works. We use material from reliable and verifiable sources, whether it be for Usain Bolt or Nabi Tajima or our other five million articles. Just as readers know what it means when Bolt is described as "fastest person ever", we all know what it means when someone is described as "oldest"; It's based on the data and records available as described in reliable and verifiable sources. Welcome to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we follow sources for the facts/assertions they report, we don't necessarily follow them in their form of expression. Thus while a newspaper might loosely say "X is the oldest person in Japan", knowing (or hoping) that readers will understand the imprecision in that statement, Wikipedia should be precise i.e should say, "X is reportedly the oldest person in Japan" or "X is the oldest known person in Japan". Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we're agreeing. Assertions are based on characterizations in reliable and verifiable sources. If you want to tweak the wording for Nabi Tajima or for Usain Bolt, there's room for greater accuracy. I'm just glad that you're acknowledging that the argument that the person may not in fact be "oldest" is no more relevant than the claim that Bolt is not "fastest". I'm glad that we can now work together with that common understanding that such arguments for deletion as the ones used here are worthless. Alansohn (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nominator chose the strongest of the arguments available for deletion/merging. For me it's NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that other language Wikipedia choose to copy this is not an argument for keeping. That she might become the oldest person in the future is pure speculation. She is much more likely to die. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, that she has been recognized in reliable and verifiable sources as the "the oldest living person in Japan and the world's 4th oldest living person" is entirely accurate and constitutes a rather clear and strong claim of notability. Let's keep the article on that basis. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reportedly" is a weasel word to avoid, it builds in skepticism, like it is a rumor. Using "verified" and "recorded" is proper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as various reliable sources indicate, she is a verified recordholder. We report what the sources say, and there have been plenty of coverage on her, thus making her notable. Vivexdino (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since she is still alive, I think that WP:NOPAGE considerations could be dealt with after she has died and the totality of the coverage is known. Although this is somewhat of a WP:CRYSTALBALL argument, the available sources appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:N, which means that it can be kept for the time being. Canadian Paul 18:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legacypac and others are on a crusade to delete all longevity-related articles due to warped logic that they are "only known for longevity". Well, Babe Ruth is only known for playing baseball, that's WP:BLPE, we better delete all sports players articles because they focus on sports! That's the kind of logic you're using. It's warped logic. If being 110+ wasn't notable, the oldest living person's death wouldn't be in the news as often. Koto Okubo was an exception - she was a very withdrawn woman who preferred to remain anonymous, and we knew very little of her. And I've noticed the nominator closing an AfD as Delete - that flat-out breaks the rules. You are not the one who decides what is notable and what is not. Nabi Tajima, being the oldest person in Japan, the oldest person ever from Kagoshima Prefecture (excluding Izumi and Hongo), the fourth-oldest living person, and one of the last four people born in the 19th century, is quite clearly notable. --158.222.69.9 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed an AfD before any substative involvement with longevity related articles. The Close survived a deletion review, and the deletion was based on Policy. Now that I read up on this topic I've foud a cleanup is needed. This 'oldest person here or there' stuff does not confer notability. Even advocates of tracking this supposed competition to live the longest admit that they don't have a good idea who all the contestants are. For example, there are some really old people in China but I don't see them on these lists very often, certianly not to the extent you would expect given the proportion of the population China represents. The general absence of Chinese people makes the whole exercise of picking the oldest person in the world highly suspect. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you EEng's clone? Firstly, "longevity does not confer notability" is YOUR OPINION. Outside sources tend to disagree. Secondly, there is no "competition", nor is anyone suggesting there is. Thirdly, if you knew anything about the subject, you would know that China has very poor levels of documentation (few people have birth certificates, etc), hence it's very difficult for Chinese longevity claimants' ages to be proven. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you EEng's clone?" I certainly hope he isn't, for his sake. But great minds do think alike, of course. EEng (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, I know a lot about China and existence or lack of documentation, which is why I point out that claims like "oldest person in Asia" or "4th oldest in the world" are most likely false and should not be made. I don't nominate or vote against notable people with more then trivial or routine coverage for something other then getting old. Legacypac (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no one is saying, definitively, that any given person is the Nth oldest person in the world, only that they're the oldest KNOWN AND VERIFIED person in the world. Secondly, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on outside sources, not the editor's opinions. If a reliable outside source ranks someone as the 4th oldest (verified) person, then there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't either. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:WHYN (see footnote 1). If a larger article provides better context and maintainability, it would be sensible to merge. Wikipedia is not limited by space, but it is limited by editing resources. The sources only cover the subject in the context of her old age (not even how she got to that age). Esquivalience ^t 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with all the keep arguments above. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Weak leaning towards delete, but would prefer/support merge I spent a bit of time assessing (or at least trying to as I don't read Japanese well and am limited to reading the kanji) the sources that are in the stub. The NHK source doesn't work for me, not sure if that is a location related problem or if the link is dead. The IB Times source only has her as a passing mention in a table among other similarly aged ladies. The PDF source mentions her only in the wider context of Senior's day, so yet again another passing mention. The Nankainn source has slightly more detail going on to talk about her receiving a gift on Senior's day and a small blurb about her offspring. I'll reserve my opinion on the Guiness book of records entry as I'm not familiar with how Guiness as a source is assessed. She certainly does not satisfy, in my eyes, the significant coverage requirement, but the fact that she appeared in a number of publications does indicate there is a sufficient level of notability that information about Nabi-san should included somewhere but not as a standalone article. Blackmane (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - WP:NOPAGE applies here. What else can be said about her other than she's old (no disrespect intended at all, but, honestly, that's all she's notable for)? Assuming, for a minute, that notability isn't an issue, how does it better the encyclopedia to have a standalone article doomed to be stub for eternity when we can integrate the information into a more comprehensive article?--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't "doomed to be a stub for eternity"... she is still living, she could go on to become the world's oldest person, Japan's oldest ever person, etc. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she becomes the world's oldest person, all that will mean is shifting her from one list to another, because NOPAGE will still apply (unless in the meantime she wins the Boston Marathon or a Nobel Prize, or stabs one of her caretakers or does something else worth knowing). EEng (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truly amazing how people that existed for over 100 years doing nothing worthy of being included in an encyclopedia (or the rest home newsletter) are all of a sudden considered notable by some editors while they languish in a care home, were most people are nearly totally forgotten. Apparently if someone(s) in another carehome on the other side of the world dies it makes this other person super-notable. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I think you'll find that the result of a number of recent AfD's for world's oldest person biographies show that consensus is in favour of such people having standalone articles in many cases. Legacypac, don't be so ridiculous. Clearly, the world's oldest person is notable for outliving BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, not just one person. Stop suggesting otherwise. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware of you being in charge of my suggestions. I'll consult you in advance next time. "Consensus is in favour of such people having standalone articles in many cases" -- yeah, if 13 keeps out of the 63 AfDs in recent months counts as "many". But hey -- who's keeping score, right? The NOPAGE argument is a powerful one, as almost all these people have led lives of exemplary dullness. EEng (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WORLD'S OLDEST PERSON biographies. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about WOP bios. Can I be in charge of my own suggestions now? EEng (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC) EEng (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally talking about people who were the world's oldest person. And no, I'll tell you how to think ;) -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean now -- the top-of-the-heap oldest oldest. I suspect that's because those discussions centered on notability rather than NOPAGE, and/or there tends to be more known/published about the top-of-the-heapers. It's certainly not simply because the subjects had that status, since simple longevity, even at the "true WOP" level, isn't a notability get-out-of-jail-free card. EEng (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Billions of people? Why mention that Person A outlived Person B at all then? According to people that track the keep breathing race they are only tracking maybe 10% of the super old. So claiming this women is the 4th oldest in the world is inaccurate - more likely, she is somewhere around 30-40th oldest. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to do original research. You might realize that "verified" and "recorded" are part of the concept. Before our sun exploded to make the current solar system from the detritus, there may have been billions of people that lived over the year 200. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The billions of people that live on Earth, obviously. That's why being the world's oldest is notable. Someone attains the distinction after someone else passes away, hence why you mention it. Do I really have to spell this out? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC

Keep. per other users.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)[reply]
Delete then redirect There is nothing here worth keeping. Fails Wikipedia rules about significant coverage. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. The only significant details are easily included on a list. That's the result counseled by WP:NOPAGE in cases like this. David in DC (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and Canadian Paul. clpo13_(talk) 22:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is that these are all getting merged. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The claim of notability is clear. The argument that only a percentage of people over 100 have been identified is moot as the article clearly states "verified living person." Also, if this is deleted, it will set prescent to delete the rest of stand alone articles links from here.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Oldest living person in Japan as well as one of only four verified living people left from the 19th century. The whole reason for nominating this article for deletion seems bogus. 930310 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You haven't answered the NOPAGE argument. The entirety of what the article says about her is:

Nabi Tajima (born 4 August 1900) is a Japanese supercentenarian who is, at the age of 115 years, 124 days, the oldest verified living person in Japan. Tajima was born in Araki, an area of what was then Wan Village, in the westernmost part of Kikaijima Island, and currently resides in Kikai. As of September 2011, she had 9 children (7 sons and 2 daughters), 28 grandchildren, 56 great-grandchildren and 35 great-great-grandchildren. As of September 2015, she had over 140 descendants.

EEng (talk) 04:37, 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. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conley family

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

Genealogical cruft. This is a mess of original research. Cobbled together from unconnected parts with not overarching coverage of this extended family. Being used as a platform to profile the random accomplishments of non notable individuals. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like quite and interesting and heavily researched family history project - but I'm not seeing any of the individuals mentioned as particularly notable nor that the family is in-and-of-itself particularly notable. So I'm going to have to put it as delete and hope that it moves somewhere more appropriate - maybe a local history museum website? JMWt (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not a suitable encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a WP:COATRACK for bios of non-notable people. Is any individual there notable enough for a standalone article? Wikipedia sometimes has family articles, but they're to tie together the articles of individually notable people. Also, 15 SPAs for this article alone indicate a big WP:COI and WP:SPA problem. John Nagle (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax? One wonders how much of this is true. Mostly real with touches of hoax, or the other way around. Include as part of this family is Vernon Baker, included here on the basis that "Baker's first wife was Helen Stewart Baker, a member of the Conley Family of Alabama" [19]. That info was put into Baker's page by SPA socks connected to this mess. Prior it said his first wife was Leola Baker. The New York Times says "his first wife, Fern"? What's true? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. I've seen several refs which say he had 3 wives, some only two, but all seem to say that his first wife was called Fern. I can't see anything suggesting Helen Stewart was married to him, other than those which use wikipedia as a source! JMWt (talk) 14:45, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bonaccio

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

unwanted biography damaging to professional reputation Nbonaccio (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced BLP with no clear claim to notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unsourced WP:BLP whose subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing more than a few trivial mentions with News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet GNG. Good luck with your career. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community Transition Resources

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

WP:ISNOT applies here; a PROD is probably a bit too indecisive for this case. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to see how this could be turned into something appropriate and acceptable. JMWt (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a list of resources. reddogsix (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & WP:PROMO. FrameDrag (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a phone directory. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. WP:NOTWEBHOST. AllyD (talk) 19:09, 25 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. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Liangming

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG NextGenSam619^t@lk 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 06:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 06:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 06:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 06:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a phenomenal amount of coverage of him in the Chinese media, including in-depth features and interviews meeting WP:GNG. Examples are 1, 2, and 3. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some explanation as to what these say? At the moment you have provided a number of foreign language sources in a script that makes it impossible to infer meaning. You can't just dump a load of sources like this and run, you need to explain how these contribute to GNG. These could simply be routine transfer talk or worse, might not even be about the player. Fenix down (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are looking for here. How does the script make it impossible to infer meaning - simply right-click and press translate; or toss the URL in https://translate.google.ca/ - it's quite clear that these are in-depth features and interviews. Nothing in the scripting on the web page stops the translate from working. Nfitz (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG being the first ever Chinese player to sign for, arguably, one of the world's largest and most successful football clubs. Consequently, there is ample coverage on the player from some very large English media outlets that are expressing the sheer significance of his transfer.[20][21][22]. This is one Asian source discussing the player[23], but if he is getting significant coverage in Europe, I can only imagine what they are saying about him in China. --Ashkaan232 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just routine transfer reports, there's essentially nothing in any of those sources that would enable anyone to write an encyclopedic article which would contain anything other than "he signed for Real Madrid". The chinese source you provided is just a brief match report of a youth team game. Transfer talk and match reporting are, by long standing consensus, not considered appropriate for GNG. You may well imagine that there is lots written about him in China, but you need to be able to provide those sources and explain to a non-chinese-speaking audience what they say and how they contribute to GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fenix down Those may be routine, but the 3 references above, that I added to the article, aren't. See 1, 2, and 3. 1 and 3 are in-depth features, and 2 is an extensive interview, all appearing on major Chinese media outlets, thus making it clear that this player meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of non-routine coverage meeting GNG. Carlos Kickabaw (talk) 22:38, 9 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! 06:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not presently play in a fully-professional league and has not played senior international football, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. All references provided in the article and all references found with a Google search are routine transfer reports and other items which do not rise to the level of WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jkudlick I've added three more references to the article. 1, 2, and 3. 1 and 3 are in-depth features, and 2 is an extensive interview, all appearing on major Chinese media outlets, thus making it clear that this player meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources located by Nfitz do indicate WP:GNG has been met. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and the sources provided are not sufficient to establish general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the three new sources, all meeting WP:GNG that I've now added to the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing more than routine, trivial coverage so fails WP:GNG Spiderone 21:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the three new sources, all meeting WP:GNG that I've now added to the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now wish for my vote to change to keep because of new evidence. Spiderone 18:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Nfitz (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that Lin Liangming passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (WP:NFOOTBALL) says: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Since the subject passes the general notability guideline, he is notable under Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which says that either meeting GNG or the sport specific criteria makes a subject notable.
Cunard (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per good work by Nfitz passes WP:GNG through it fails WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first and third of the sources Nfitz provides reach WP:BASIC, --joe decker ^talk 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No longer fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 25 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. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Monastyrsky

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

Non-notable. All citations are from his own sites or from a blog. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources included on the BLP are not reliable and self-published. Meatsgains (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tried and failed to find any independent secondary sources as per the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like Okna DeskTop Set may be notable and worth an article[24], but I don't see that Monastyrsky is. Maybe he'll become a famous writer, but too soon.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more sources in Proquest Historical Newspapers, but still not enough.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not look like notable at all based on the single third party source currently used on this page [25]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A link pointing out that the subject is on the fringe of mainstream thought, like the one given by My very best wishes, does not reduce the notability of the subject, but it does show that we need to be cautious about making sure that our coverage of the subject is based on mainstream and not just fringe sources, so that we can be properly neutral. Unfortunately in this case there are not reliable sources that appear to confer much notability at all, regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe. Instead we have four footnotes to the subject's own sites, and one skeptic blog of dubious reliability. That's not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article relies heavily on primary sources. Not a single reliable source.Pixarh (talk) 12:36, 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 Move to draftspace. The article has been/will be moved to Draft:Bookit (company) (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 19:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bookit (company)

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

Company of questionable notability. PRODed it but PROD was removed. Note that their main product ("2-way iSMS") was recently deleted as non-notable (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-way_iSMS), which argues the company is non-notable too. Furthermore, I strongly suspect WP:COI editing. SJK (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article went through AfC three times and I note that the interested editor was notified about the PROD, but has not been notified of the AfD. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk
- I have notified them now. I don't see how many times it went through AfC is relevant to the criteria of whether we keep or delete it - which is whether it is notable. AfC reviewers will sometimes create articles for non-notable things, due to differing individual interpretations/applications of the notability standards. SJK (talk) 00:10, 21 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) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draftspace as if I had reviewed this, I would not have accepted it like Timtrent as the article simply needed any more available in-depth third-party sources and my own searches now only found a few links at Books, News and browsers....certainly nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I tend not to !vote on drafts I have accepted. The article was always borderline for acceptance. Sometimes main namespace works for a borderline article, sometimes not. All it has to be is capable of being referenced to remain here. The argument that it "simply needs more references" (presumably for it to remain in main namespace) has to fail on that basis. But, if it is returned to Draft: that has to be acceptable, too. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return to draft space Premature acceptance. The refs need to be pruned to those with substnatial cotnent, and then we cna properly judge the notability . DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 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 delete. Despite some coverage of some basic facts, I see consensus that the subject is not notable: the arguments by DGG and Carrite are strong. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arivale

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

Not notable. Just another start-up company doing usual business. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Startup covrerage as usual, nothing to make it pass WP:NCOMPANY. It worms my heart, however, to see other people trying to prune this spam. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG from coverage in reliable sources:
- Lerman, Rachel (13 July 2015). "Lee Hood's Arivale raises $36M to personalize your health care". The Seattle Times.
- Parkhurst, Emily (14 July 2015). "The personalized health data revolution is coming and Dr. Leroy Hood just raised $36M to make it happen". Puget Sound Business Journal.
- Lash, Alex (19 June 2015). "Lee Hood's "100K" Long-Term Health Study Spins Out Startup". Xconomy.
- Lash, Alex (14 July 2015). "Individual scientific wellness coaching with Arivale". Xconomy.
- "With $36M Funding, Arivale Walks Line To Push Wellness Business". KING-TV. 11 November 2015.
- Soper, Taylor (13 July 2015). "Dr. Lee Hood's scientific wellness startup Arivale raises $36M to improve health through genetics". GeekWire.
- Bishop, Todd (22 October 2015). "Fast-growing scientific wellness startup Arivale hires BlueKai co-founder as chief revenue officer". GeekWire.
- Karow, Julia (14 July 2015). "ISB Spinout Arivale Raises $36M in Series B Financing to Provide Science-Based Wellness Advice". GenomeWeb.

Antrocent (♫♬) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the current sourcing seems sufficiently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:Antrocent. I can see that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a perfect example of what she should not cover, and a clear indication we need to formally change the corporate guidelines. Articles that cover only the initial fundingnad the future plans of a company are advertising, and we should not do that. Almost all the sources are blatantly unreliable PR sources: local business journals and sources like Geekwire print articles on everything they get sent, and the PR industry makes sure that the material gets sent to them. It is not clear to me from the refs if they have actually any working operations yet. What there seem to be are academic trials of a test system. Possibly that academic project should be covered. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seattle Times has won a Pulitzer Prize and the Puget Sound Business Journal has been a finalist. These are not unreliable sources. And I guess I fundamentally disagree with your opinions on advertising, this article does not do any more for the company than McDonald's article does for it. The company does have current operations, but if it did not, I would still see no problem. Articles about upcoming films, etc. are allowed. I think that even in funding (especially in unusually large amounts such as $32 million) there is important information that is useful for understanding the world. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 18 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! 00:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DGG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little more than run of the mill coverage of a new startup company. Nobody doubts that the Seattle Times is a fine newspaper, only whether a blurb they run about a startup gaining financing is sufficient to pass either GNG or the Special Guidelines for Corporations. Not sufficient, in my view. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 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 delete. The "keep" opinion appears on its face persuasive, but if I close this as "no consensus" we'll have one more BLP article that cites zero reliable sources, because apparently nobody could be bothered to actually edit the article to reflect these sources during the month this has been on AfD. So: Deleted for now, can be recreated if anybody bothers to write a half-way decent, sourced article. Sandstein 18:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Sethna

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

Fails WP:ACTOR Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at this time and certainly unacceptable current version. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 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 03:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources include in-depth here, a positive review here, she was on a dubious Forbes list of top 100 Indian celebrities here, coverage here, plus she's been acting as a kid and got a mention in the Irish Times, she meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Carson

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

No notability on her own - what notability she seems to have is totally tied to her marriage to Ben Carson. Keep in mind, notability is not inherited. Foundation work is only with her husband, books written were co-authored with her husband. If not deleted outright, could be merged with her husband's article. No notability apart from her marriage to Ben Carson. A nice lady, it would seem, and I wish she merited her own article, but it just doesn't appear she has any notability on her own. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We keep articles on people with far less coverage and who don't have 4 books and a 5th about to be released. Which Carson do you think wrote the books - the one doing brain surgery and flying around giving speaches or the double Yale major with the MBA back in the home office? As for coverage start with [26] [27] [28] [29] [30][31][32][33][34] [35] and if you want to know more I suggest buying her 5th book [36] because one of her books spend weeks on the best seller list. She passes just on WP:AUTHOR "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work..." and based on the multiple profiles published on her going back for years. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question about who I think wrote the books... that's not for us to judge. What is up to us to judge is whether she has an article because of who she is married to (WP:INHERITED) and if she meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG). If not married to Ben Carson, we wouldn't know who she is. Coverage doesn't equate notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Based on all that, from what I can see, this article should not exist. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is on the covers, which you dismiss. Go apply your logic on this community college teacher Jill Biden or Donald Trumps 3 wives or 5 kids, all of whom have stand alone articles. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Biden is the Second Lady of the United States as wife of the vice president. Not a good parallel. Trump's wives have had notability on their own apart from him. Also not a good parallel. Look, I know you're pissed because an article you created is up for deletion, but if she doesn't meet GNG, she doesn't meet GNG. It happens. No need to take this personally and get testy about it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm annoyed that an editor of your experience has such a loose grasp of GNG or BIO is all. Is there bias on your part because if she was not married to Ben Carson and was just some person who was portrayed in a Cuba Gooding Jr movie, wrote 5 books and got on the NYT Best Seller's list, and co-founded and run a famous national scholarship program there you would support inclusion of this bio. 04:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Yes, it's quite obvious you're annoyed. That said, my experience has shown me that NPOV editors don't get so annoyed over AfDs like this. If they disagree with the nom, they just say so and move on. Your comments above would be insulting if they didn't invite a chuckle as a result of the dramatic tone to them. Further, I find it amusing that, in spite of what I said in my nomination comments, you are accusing me of having an anti-Candy Carson bias. I just don't see how this article is worthy of inclusion. If not deleted, it should be merged with Ben Carson. But I'm more old-school-what-an-encyclopedia-really-is than a lot of newer editors, so... Here we are. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Books. Media spotlight during presidential campaigns. Solid sourcing. Why is this at AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Look at the article, re-read WP:GNG and WP:INHERIT, and that should tell you why. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all about sources. There are multiple profiles of her in major news media. Coverage like this happens to formerly non-notable people for many different reasons. I don't make judgments about why it has happened. It has happened, so, as an article topic, this passes WP:GNG And do be careful of WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERIT can be trumped by sources. We have articles on Richard Nixon's mother, and on sundry United States presidential pets. As well as on many, many spouses who have come to public attention via marriage. What we guage here is the caliber (duration, depth, prominence) of that attention in RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not trumped by sources due to the fact that the media attention she's receiving wouldn't be happening were her husband not running for the nomination. Further, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, therefore media coverage isn't a valid litmus for GNG, either. Add to this that your argument re:other articles existing equates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument and what do we still have? An article that shouldn't exist. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON. Settle down. It's only an AFD, not World War III.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of Bias for putting together a short article from indepth coverage in multiple major media pretty inappropriate. Do I have a bias for ISIL cause the last two article creations were on ISIL? Try this- Google Candy Carson and look how G suggests 'Candy Carson bio' 'Candy Carson Biography' and 'Candy Carson Wikipedia' which is strong evidence people expect a Wikipedia bio article. The media attention has increased because of the Presidential run but remember She's been a real life charactor in best selling books for decades, been a best selling author for years, been portrayed as a lead character in a movie, and I even found a TV documentary that covered her along with her husband and mother-in-law from 1991 - all of which predate any Presidential bid. Being related to a famous person DOES NOT mean we through out GNG. I created the article because I searched WP and was very surprised to find no article on her, but 2 or 3 other articles that mentioned her. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: Mentioning bludgeon to me again? Once wasn't enough? I have no reason to settle down, because I'm neither excited nor upset. I don't understand why Legacypac is so upset. But, I guess that's a discussion for another place and time. I stand by my feelings this article should be deleted or merged. Candy Carson's notability stems from her husband's notability, ergo, inherited applies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let some other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:54, 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! 00:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep I'm sure being married to a major political person has helped with the number of media stories about her, but she also seems to have a notable writing career in her own right. On the basis that she has been noted in the media and other secondary sources, I think therefore it is hard to argue against her inclusion on WP:GNG grounds. Yes, I appreciate notoriety is not inherited, but in a situation like this is it quite hard to separate different aspects of her life. Maybe people even read her work because she is married to a politician, who knows. JMWt (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She's written several books. That makes her notable as an author. She's also the subject of numerous media stories. True, her notability originated because she is married to a prominent political figure, but Colin Hanks' notability originated because he is the son of a famous actor, and he has developed his own career. WP:INHERIT doesn't mean that we can't create articles about people whose notability began because of their relationship to a prominent person. Joseph Clay, Jr. (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's Vote [37] 52,700 some readers in the last 30 days say Candy Carson deserves a BLP. For a new article with few links to get close to the 60,000 reads at the current first lady is impressive [38] Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with deciding whether to delete article or not --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After giving WV fair warning on his talk page, I've struck his baseless attempt to paint me as an official representative of the Carson's. I still expect an apology. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO, you do not have the right to ever change or remove or strike the comments of other editors, regardless of the reason (apart from utilizing WP:DENY in the case of a vandal or sock account). My comments were meant tongue-in-cheek, Legacypac. At the time I wrote the comments, I was certain I had placed a "smiley" after them so you would know I was only kidding and trying to add some levity. I only apologize for leaving out the smiley face, but not for making the comments, as they were done completely in good faith and with no malintent at all. I am sorry you took them the wrong way and certainly regret you have obviously been extremely upset by what I said. You are very obviously Canadian (as stated on your User page) so it's not possible for you to be PAC-connected. Like I said, my comment was strictly meant to be humorous and nothing more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is hollow for you restored the personal attack I struck (and have restruck as is my right). Being sorry I was upset does not mean you are sorry for falsely painting me as a COI editor. Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note That Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses of politicians (categorized by state) Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed. The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything. He or she just has to be profiled in major media, (think Todd Palin). WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc. It does not matter what a subject is notable for. We are only here to judge whether sources that support notability exist. In Candy Carson's case, they do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 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. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Empire War-Z

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

Non-notable video game. I can't find any reliable secondary sources. Most of this article (as of this nomination) consists of game guide content. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks to be a standard, non-notable mobile app game. From what I can see, this released this year to pretty much zero fanfare. It seems to exist and that's about it - I can't really see where it's received coverage via independent and reliable sources. It might gain coverage in the future (although with apps it seems that if it doesn't make a splash in the first few months, odds are it likely won't get coverage later), but for now it just doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TG179 (if TG can't find anything, there's not much point me looking - but I did anyway). Not a deletion reason, but I was rather unimpressed by the home website, which could do with a bit of proof reading. It tells you virtually nothing about the game, which might be part of the reason for this article being created. Peridon (talk) 13:20, 26 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. Per SK1 - Technically my rationale is now incorrect as someone did find something so thus the delete !vote is pretty much moot, Not sure why I never found any but thanks JMWt for finding some. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 11:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Reverb

AfDs for this article:

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

Well there's no time like the present!, Previous AFD was closed as No Consensus about 5minutes ago but nothing's changed since the last nomination so renomming for a second time.
Non notable radio station, Can't find anything at all on the station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has OFCOM license, has been featured in media here and here and here in this autobiography, this published academic paper, was mentioned in this debate in the UK parliament etc. JMWt (talk) 11:02, 25 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy (Brazil) covers

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

Magazine covers generally aren't notable. The Brazilian Playboy isn't Time. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep maybe rename to "...cover models"--damiens.rf 21:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 18 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! 00:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, no prejudice against renaming. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Serves as a functional WP:SUBARTICLE of Playboy (Brazil), as evidenced by the substantial page views it receives (1,331 in October 2015). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 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) clpo13_(talk) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirjana Puhar

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

I originally merged this article to America's Next Top Model (cycle 21) as this model does not have any other notability other than appearing in a reality TV show but this was reverted without explanation. The primary reason for nomination is that this contestant's notability has never gone beyond the aforementioned show and being a murder victim does not mean she will pass WP:BLP1E, meaning that her notability is restricted to reality TV and nothing else. Donnie Park (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition that this article was created by a sock user, so I am to assume that this qualify for speedy deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the many (substantial) edits by others, G5 does not apply. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 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} 07:25, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreh Maru

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

No evidence of notability, not even released yet Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

And WP:INDAFD: "O. Gautam" "O Gautam Singh"

Delete until film is released and gets better coverage. The director is sourcable,[39][40][41] and the film is barely so. If gaining suiable coverage after release, the article can be resurrected.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 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! 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No brainer, actually, since it's not yet been released. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON.Pixarh (talk) 15:55, 25 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 01:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ché Ahn

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

Does not appear to meet GNG, even as author. Couldn't find any in-depth coverage on him or his books. Appears to be part of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 18 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! 00:26, 25 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. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grid connection

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

This article has been around since 2005, and has made little progress since. Its main problem is a lack of clear topic. "Grid connection" is a hopelessly broad and vague term which can be applied to pretty much any electric device or system, as can be evidenced by lack of single definition and a collection of broad descriptions in this article, as well as a low count of incoming links. The talk page discussion indicates similar frustration of other editors as to what to do with the article, including an unsuccessful merge debate. Even this long 2008 revision shows a lack of clear focus, and most contents have been merged to smart grid and subtopics, I suppose. I failed to find suitable sources that would justify having this as a separate topic: for example,

all discuss the term in a specific context (generator or customer connection), but provide little ground for a standalone article. No such user (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs work, but there are ample references discussing the related topic "going off the grid" when someone has a house with wind, solar and a backup generator or small hydro unit. Maybe this article could be merged or redirected to Off-the-grid or to Electrical grid. This article does not begin or intend to address the general topic of utility grids, such as the US having several connected and synchronized power pools or "grids" with issues such as re-synchronizing when there are blackouts and isolated islands of generation become unsynchronized, and with DC ties being used to transfer power between unsynchronized grids, with thousand of generators and busses connected by many thousand transmission lines. Edison (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: Surely it needs work, but in which direction? We lack a clear definition what it is about.
I wouldn't mind merge into one of the articles you suggested. Or, more broadly, since the term is proven to be ambiguous, why don't we turn it into a dab page with targets to the articles you proposed? Another viable candidate is wide area synchronous grid (or "interconnection", in more common term), which describes connections between national/regional transmission systems. No such user (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good topic, shocking stub but not a deletable sub-stub. Needs work, yes. Andrewa (talk) 06:31, 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! 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't find any of the nom's arguments convincing, and, while it could use some work, see no grounds for deletion. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:05, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Draga

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

Biography lacking any sources whatsoever, doesn't seem to meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 15:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added one reference but that is only a listing name-check for an article by the subject. More promising is an article on "George Draga and the Concept of Heterophony in the Seventies" if anyone has institutional access to the Musicology Today journal. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 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! 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 25 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 01:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Your Argument

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was closed as WP:NPASR. Renominating with the same rationale Doesn't seem to have met WP:BCAST. The claim of large audience (heard nationally) is not verified, has no established history and is not an unique program. Guess this should be deleted. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 18 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! 00:24, 25 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 arguments to keep are presented. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Greef

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

No notability, no sources. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can barely prove that he existed, with this, this, this, this. He also shows up in some music catalogs, but just a listing of his name and a work. None of these is sufficient to keep the article, yet as a historic figure it seems a shame to lose this. I will at least link in a reference to his work. LaMona (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of the article was apparently for most of his life a music teacher and organist in Moers, not the kind of thing that usually makes people notable. He seems to have quite an impressive memorial fountain in the town part at Moers, but that seems to be because he founded the local male-voice choir. However, one of the sources that User:LaMona has added to the article has quite a claim of significance - he was the first person to publish Die Wacht am Rhein with its present tune. The reason for this seems to have been that, apart from the day job and a bit of related music composition, he was also quite a prolific compiler of songbooks for choirs, and the composer of the music lived in Krefeld, only a few miles from Moers. Apart from this, Greef was the brother-in-law of and occasional collaborator with Ludwig Erk.[42][43] - both seem to have had something of a reputation for their songbooks in 19th century Germany, but (at least in Greef's case), it seems to have faded since. PWilkinson (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there's simply no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 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 02:13, 18 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! 00:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless reliable sources can be found and notability established. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 25 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) 14:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Zedd

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

I am reposting this because the deletion process found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lord Zedd seems not to have correctly listed. Any other admin is welcome to close it as they want or leave further discussion go on. The Afd started by an incorrectly substed Afd tag posted by an anonymous IP that used a fake signature. Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television -related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain my original vote of Delete as the article has poor unreliable third person sources Magioladitis.Dwanyewest (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't really find anything other than mentions of the character in passing in articles about the TV series in general, although I did find this article entitled "The ‘Is Lord Zedd Jewish?’ Debate And Other Things You Might Not Know About ‘Mighty Morphin Power Rangers’". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:00, 18 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! 00:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers characters. I doubt this character is notable enough to get his own article. IEdior (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: IEdior is a suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813.—Bagumba (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--typically for such topics there's nothing but primary material, and there appears to be no secondary material at all. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 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. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Cities Mall

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Mid-Cities Mall and Lakeshore Mall are a pair of adjacent non-notable malls with the same owner and effectively identical sourcing.

Mid-Cities Mall has been demolished. Source[44] is a random blog. Source[45] announces that Mid-Cities must be demolished. Source[46] announces that Mid-Cities has been demolished.

Lakeshore Mall is "mostly empty" according to the article. Uses source #2 above, which makes a passing mention that Lakeshore Mall exists and has the same owner. Uses source #3 above, which makes no mention of Lakeshore Mall. This source is merely cited for WP:CRYSTALBALL editor-commentary that purely-speculative new development on Mid-Cities-property might affect Lakeshore's future. Alsee (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps if there's no better improvement and it's not surprising as some of these places often never get acceptable enough coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 19 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! 00:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. 3 insignificant malls. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 27 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 merge to Newcastle upon Tyne#Media. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newcastle upon Tyne publications

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

A list of publications by city seems rather too specific. Newcastle upon Tyne has no magical printing properties. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turn to prose, reducing some puffery, and merge into Newcastle upon Tyne#Media. It seems fairly well covered there already, maybe there's nothing to merge. No such user (talk) 14:10, 18 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! 00:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newcastle upon Tyne § Media. It's a short list, to it won't overwhelm the merge target. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 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. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumedh Mudgalkar

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

Not notable. Has not appeared in notable roles in serials and only claim for dance competitions is that he was either a runner up or 3rd runner up. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been edited by following editors who have no/few edits outside this article: User:Ash Ashlyyy, User:Fkdrsm 0000, User:Nashitaarif, User:Adam194, User:Poorti korde. Pretty fishy I must say. Filed SPI here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for pointing that out. Opened SPI here. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, searches for sources indicate that nothing is found to meet WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:57, 18 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! 00:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Sam Sailor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 25 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onset Computer Corporation

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

This has had a 'notability' tag hanging over it since 2012 and an attempt to speedy delete this article in 2013 was turned down with a suggestion to "take this to AfD". Hence here it is. Though this data logging company claims to have been in existence since 1981, I can't see any particular claims of significance. The sources are largely 'stuff on the internet', with no general news coverage to help it pass the WP:NCORP notability threshold. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find a few industry publications. Nothing of significance to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:13, 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! 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by single-purpose account and retains promotional tone. I can't find any in-depth coverage in secondary sources - not notable. Run of the mill article spam. Citobun (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article with trivial references. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 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.

[1] "Watch 'Beard Meats Food' competitive eater bag world record by scoffing 17 Big Macs in just one hour". mirror.

[2] "Competitive eater fails epic food challenge by a single pot of beans". dailyrecord.

[3] "Adam scoffs 5,500-calorie fish&chips supper in just 12 mins - Weird News - Funny, Strange & Bizarre UK News Stories - Daily Star". Dailystar.co.uk.

[4] "YouTuber Adam Moran of Beardmeatsfood sets world record by eating 17 Big Macs in an hour - Metro News". Metro.

[5] "Could you complete the Widowmaker hotdog challenge at Ox and Bone, Huddersfield? Leeds competitive eater sets a new record!". huddersfieldexaminer.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist_mythology}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Makkar}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Herbein}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Herbein}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female action heroes (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff the Diseased Lung}}