Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 October	13 October >

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 speedy delete/archive as a blatant hoax. There's zero references for this on the Internet and the sources in the article (the ones that can be reviewed) do not mention this show. If anyone can show proof that this show actually existed, I'll restore the article and bring it back to AfD, however all that a search brings up are mirrors of this site and joking forum threads. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Siccness Network

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

This article is a hoax originating from the siccness.net forums, the sources are all falsified or don't contain the cited material. — east718 | talk | 23:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 23:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be a pretty obvious hoax. There's nothing coming up in a search and threads like this one give off the strong impression that this was done as an in-joke by someone on the forum. I'm going to close this as a hoax and archive the material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Caplan

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a psychotherapist, actually more of a chimera split halfway between a primary-sourced repost of his résumé (complete with a directory, larded with WP:ELNO-violating offlinks, of every individual article he ever wrote for an academic journal or a newspaper) and a completely unsourced WP:COATRACK essay about his self-designed counselling model. An academic isn't automatically entitled to have or keep a Wikipedia article just because he exists — it takes reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NACADEMICS, for him to earn inclusion here. There's also a likely WP:COI, as the single most frequent editor of the article since its creation has been User:Needs-abc. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing some trivial coverage in newspaper articles but nothing about him, just some quotes by him on different topics. Nothing meets notability requirements. The self-promotion on the page definitely does not help. mikeman67 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable and a borderline case of advertising. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-searches did not turn up anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ready set rocket

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

Fails google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I found nothing better than a few browser links. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a usual company doing everyday business. Company does not have significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to make a claim of notability. See A7. --Bejnar (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not find anything which meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count de Salis-Seewis

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

I haven't found much good for this aside from these links and there's not much withbaside from Johann Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis's article. This has stayed the same and was tagged as having original research. Count de Salis-Soglio was also tagged but that one seems better and may not actually need to be deleted. Pinging tagger ZH8000 and author Rodolph. SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is a good article? Why would you want to delete it? Please don't.Rodolph (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The citation style is extremely vague. No page numbers or ISBN are cited nor even article names. This makes it very hard to verify the sources or to determine the extent of coverage. I have removed the "Hoax" tag for want of any evidence supporting that claim. My gut says the article subject may be notable enough to pass GNG. Aristocratic families are frequently kept in AfD discussions. But this one needs serious work and does not at present demonstrate an unimpeachable case for notability given its poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor who started the article is I think is working from what I understood based on past experience,were original manuscripts or rarer works held in a private collection, which given the age of the sources would explain the absence of ISBN's for the sources quoted. It may not be up to the quality of Burke's (which I will note is a source that could be used) but I would be wary about deletion purely on the citation style. Whilst Wikipedia would obviously prefer recent sources, for subject like this, the verifiable sources ARE going to be "older works in obscure collections". Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good point and I note that the article's creator has been diligently working on the article. At the moment I am leaning towards a Keep !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johann Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis, who seems to be the only notable person in the whole article. The rest seems to be about NN descendants. The title seems to be a French one for a Swiss soldier in French pay for a short period before the French Revolution. We do not even seem to have an article on the person for whom the Austrian title was re-created in 1915, presumably being abolished with the end of the Austrian Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations to English-language books published by university presses. 86.24.88.241 (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to keep it, although it needs a LOT of work. I am somewhat confused about the use of Comte and Graf, which the article page suggests to be different even though they mean exactly the same: count. The Britannica page on poet Johan Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis only attributes the title Freiherr to him, as does the German wiki-page and the en-wiki version before Rodolph started editing. I assume that he mis-translated Freiherr as Comte/Count, while it should be Baron (not exactly, but it's the general equivalent). This might also explain the remarkable mention of two creation dates: one for Freiherr, the other for Graf. If that is true, Apparently we're dealing with a number of separate comital titles bestowed upon the family "de/von Salis-Seewis" rather than with "the Count of Salis-Seewis"; in other words, they're non-landed nobility. Hence, the page might be better moved to something like "House of Salis-Seewis", or simply "Salis-Seewis". - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of the explanation just above. The possible merge/move should be decided later. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Of Rukrani

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

Badly translated it's not even clear what the subject is, basically nonsense Jac16888 ^Talk 16:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would simply need to be restarted with better English and composition to be even minimally acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. .The topic is clear enough--it's a family, but there isn't enough standard for that. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability asserted in the article, and there don't seem to be any reliable sources discussing anything that would lead to a future finding of notability. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear what the subject of this article is, although I'm sure that some of the content could be merged into Jam (title of nobility). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not clear how this article managed to survive for so long on Wikipedia and went to old AfD log. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences

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

Nominating for other's opinion.The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unclear on this one. The journal shows to have existed since 2010 as "Dysphrenia", and the issues are online. However, the early issues are far, far from scholarly. After the name change, the articles took on a scholarly appearance. I looked at some issues trying to see if the articles were real. In many of the bogus open access journals, you find that the articles have been copied from articles elsewhere, with only the author's names changed, and maybe a word or two changed in the title. I didn't find this to be the case for this one. However, the PDFs are created in such a way that there is no underlying text that could be run against a plagiarism detection machine -- and does not allow copy/paste -- and this concerns me. It is possible that they wanted to prevent copying, but this is an uncommon measure. Other than saying that the journal exists, however, I find no other information. It appears in Worldcat, but all of the libraries listed are in a single German consortium, and since the journal is online it appears to be "held" by all of them. (~30). I find no third-party information about it, but I don't know if that is unusual for a journal. I looked at the domain for the journal (hpage.com) and it's a freebie web site. This journal links to http://indianjournals.com, but I'm not sure what the connection is. The journal is not on the predatory publishers list, although the publisher, Academy Publisher, is very close in name to Academy Publish, which is a publisher on that list. The link from the journal to Academy Publisher, however, goes to indianjournals.com and is basically a blank page ("No journals for this publisher"). I'm stumped as to whether this is an actual academic journal or not. LaMona (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this is not on Beall's list, it has many of the characteristics of a predatory journal: bad English on the website, editorial board of mainly unknown people (the editor-in-chief is an assistant professor), advertising listings on several bogus "impact factor" websites (CiteFactor, Index Copernicus, and such), proudly claiming to be "indexed" in the catalogue of the National Library of Medicine (which shows that the journal is not even on PubMed Central, despite being OA), etc. GScholar shows only a smattering of citations (also under the former title). In short, this is a non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable journal, not widely cited despite being open source, and not indexed by reliable (read selective) databases. In fact the only citations that I found to articles in this journal were contained within other articles also published by it (either the new name or the old name). --Bejnar (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G7, user request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Connolly

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP: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) 23:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G3, a blatant hoax — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Berryman

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

Possible WP:HOAX The 1942 game in which he supposedly made his debut (it was against the Dodgers, not the Reds) doesn't mention him. Also, he doesn't appear in the 1942 Phillies season either. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly a long-lived hoax. Print and online sources such as Baseball-Reference.com, which contains data for all Major League players, nowhere mention this individual. The only recorded professional baseball player named Chad Berryman played briefly in the low minor leagues from 1998-2000 and never reached the major leagues; see this Baseball-Reference.com entry for more details. An early version of this article, created by a single-purpose account, included a deliberately misleading Baseball-Reference.com link to Charlie Berry, a link that was removed in 2014 when an editor noticed it didn't match the subject. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax. Actually very disappointed that this lasted so long. Penale52 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 as he obviously never existed but it's worth noting my searches found some links here for two Chad Berryman who actually existed for Lake Elsinore Storm and also another for Lawrence County High School in Moulton, Alabama. I would've likely found this myself but I have't searched much for 2012 orphaned articles as I likely would've reviewed then when started (though that's not to say something slips by). SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brwa Nouri

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Never played a match in a fully pro league (only played in Superettan) and fails WP:NFOOTY. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP: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) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has played in neither a WP:FPL nor any senior international football. Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lawson (album)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Album release date hasn't happened yet, and charting that was indicated was for singles, not for the album itself. Content has absolutely nothing to do with the album itself, but it regurgitated content from the articles on the singles. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is indisputable that Jamie Lawson is to be considered a 'notable musician'. This article does meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, as all 5 entries on the list can be checked. Only one of the singles mentioned in the article has its own page, so the album page provides for information for the first time on other singles. This article currently includes release information and charting information for album (MSJapan's claim that charting information was for singles is incorrect, as sources show that chart statistics are for the album). The track list will be updated to include writers and times for all track after formal album release on October 16 2015. HeyJude70 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2015

Reply Except that notable musicians do not release notable albums by default; that is what WP:NOTINHERITED is all about. Your charting information cannot be for the album, as the album hasn't been released yet; the article clearly states it was pushed back, and nothing can chart before its release, so I'm sorry, but there's no way that chart information is for the album. As for your sources, you have two reliable sources. ITunes, Google Play, and Twitter just don't cut it. MSJapan (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyAlbums can chart on the iTunes Charts prior to release. The iTunes Charts are detirmined by sales of an album, so in this case the sales for this album which was available for pre-order proved to be high enough for the album to chart. The sources used for the charts determines this, and a quick scan of the Australian or UK iTunes store chart will also prove this point. Please educate yourself on how different charting systems work before removing them from a page. HeyJude70 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: iTunes charts are not Billboard. It's got nothing to do with "different charting systems" - iTunes charts are not what we use for charting purposes. See WP:CHART. MSJapan (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:This album page has been greatly improved since this article for deletion was opened. The page now includes writing credits and times for every track, personnel for the entire album and a brief history behind that album. As of next week, charting information will be added as the album has already been shown at #1 for the UK Official Charts Half-Week. This page also has several new, reliable sources. HeyJude70 (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The album has now peaked to number 1 in the UK, number 5 in Ireland, number 4 in Australia and number 3 in New Zealand. There are now lots of reliable sources and content provided in the article now. Greenock125 (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Sufficient sources, charting album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious spam and probably non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gator Moore

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

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO, not indepedently notable from The Transitions, which itself is not highly notable. Lacks WP:RS as well. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Score. Don't usually close on one !vote but does make sense to just redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where Do You Run

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, as it did not chart. MSJapan (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. A standalone article isn't merited. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Score (band)

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

Currently a one-hit wonder act. Had one song chosen for an ad campaign, but their "debut EP" did not chart. We already have an article on the song (which is notable per WP:NSONG), but this band only meets that same single criterion in WP:NBAND, and there's no substantial coverage (per Google). A band does not inherit notability based on meeting NSONG, and meeting one criterion of ten in NBAND simply is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They had a hit and there's sufficient coverage for a short article. The article on the song should be merged here. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as I agree there may not be much but it's enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G120 by Anthony Bradbury.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion

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

A neologism about a surgical procedure that doesn't meet the general notability guideline. The article appears to have been written by the doctor who developed it raising WP:OR concerns. SmartSE (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 7 primary sources on this per pubmed and no reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This item is already well placed on Spinal fusion page. A little of the page info could be added to there. This procedure does not warrant its own page. The paragraph on the economics is totally unnecessary.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been deleted as a copyright violation, but I'm not sure where it is copied from. I've asked User:Anthony Bradbury for more details, but in the meantime, can we keep this open? SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz and Suburbs Bus Organization

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

Non notable bus company, Can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything to demonstrate notability up to the WP:CORP standard. I don't read Farsi but I'm not seeing any Farsi-language sources that would seem to assert notability either. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article used to be called "Shiraz bus network" until recently, which is more in line with the information currently present. Nontheless, it is completely unsourced and a mess, so Delete. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mesriani Law Group

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

Probably non-notable American law firm. Almost all sources are SPS, trivial directory listings, or profiles in affiliated branche-internal websites. Ref #3 is a bit more detailed, but focusses on 1 specific lawyer, not on the company as a whole. Google search reveals a few passing mentions in case descriptions and some PR activity, but nothing really in-depth. GermanJoe (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until better can be applied. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current sources are primary/trivial/unreliable. A reference search hasn't turned up anything that would demonstrate notability. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as promotional and failing GNG.--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Metal Recycling Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No independent sources listed and a search only revealed passing mentions, nothing in-depth. shoy (reactions) 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does this article fail the notability guidelines for corporations (as noted by the nominator), it likely qualifies for speedy deletion for its advertising and promotional tone. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a borderline speedy, but in cases where the article is a little more put-together and doesn't read like a promo brochure, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt in case they have access to sources that I don't. shoy (reactions) 13:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I actually reviewed this at AfC and knew it wouldn't be entirely acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Nothing on the searches to show this meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti (Rihanna album)

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

Don't be fooled by the references currently used; this doesn't meet notability criteria for albums since there is no confirmed release date or tracklist. It therefore is too early for this to have an article per WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material and WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely NOT delete, but Incubate, until we get more details regarding the actual release date and the track listing. Apart of that the article can be standalone, because we already have enough information for the development, writing, artwork, obviously singles and etc. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep it's an upcoming notable album and there's already a lot of (sourced) information on it, including the name, tracks, etc. This is a misuse of WP:CRYSTAL as this is both a certian event and what is included in the article is quite a bit of the non-speculative portions of the future albums. If there's anything speculative, it should be remove but the article on the whole is notable and fairly well sourced. -- R45 ^talk! 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this isn't exactly a "speedy keep". Secondly, WP:CRYSTAL is based on unconfirmed release date. Third, see WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material; albums should not have articles when there is no confirmed release date or official tracklist, so it on the contrary is NOT (yet) notable. Specific criteria for upcoming albums exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your link at WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material:

Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

It does not say it has to have a track listing and release date are absolutely required (the words "in general" is used, and in the past there have been exceptions to this), but the principle is it should be notable and have reliable independent coverage. The article has a lot of reliable indepedent sources (72 references) discussing the album and the confirmed tracks, as well as its development. Given the scope and breath, it doesn't make sense to merge this into Rihanna's main article and frankly some common sense would suggest that this is one of those exceptional cases of a notable artist with reliable information out there on her next album. -- R45 ^talk! 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" is a meaningless argument and a cop-out response at best. Even if it wasn't, "common sense" if anything would actually not support including items without confirmed release dates. However, I might understand having an article on an album with a confirmed title, official release date, and many tracks confirmed. It would be more ideal to incubate this as Tomica points out than keeping it in mainspace. In fact, incubation is frequently used for albums ins like this before all the necessary details are confirmed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is, I'm allowed to express my opinion. I don't think it should be deleted, and I expressed my point. Others will chime in, and either there'll be consensus to keep the article or not. You've stated your case, so just let the process work. -- R45 ^talk! 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that albums don't warrant articles without confirmed release dates. Also, I never explicitly said it had to be deleted, only that it shouldn't be in mainspace. Remember there is a difference between incubating an article (moving it away from mainspace) and deleting it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "your point" comment was directed at your need to keep trying to refute my opinion. You created this AFD with your case and stated your point - I simply don't agree with you. As such, I voted Keep. I've read the policies you cited, and I don't believe this nomination is in the spirit of why the guidelines exist. Personally I think you're Wikilawyering a bit here, and this article is probably a very good example of the exceptional circumstances where we keep an unreleased album without a release date. I am only one voice and there's no need to get defensive because I disagree with the nomination. -- R45 ^talk! 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough non-speculation content for an article. sst ✈ 04:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NALBUMS is meant to be a supplement to the WP:GNG requirements. In this case, the article topic has received significant independent reliable coverage. If content in the article may be considered WP:CRYSTAL, the correct approach is to remove it from the article while keeping verifiable information. See WP:ARTN. sst ✈ 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it fails WP:NALBUMS for having no confirmed release date or tracklist is why it doesn't (yet) warrant an article, regardless of how much coverage it has received. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not need to meet WP:NALBUMS as long as it meets WP:GNG. sstflyer alt 05:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually 'DOES need to meet WP:NALBUMS, which is the specific notability criterion for albums. Specific criteria exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of source material to draw from... Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.....Except the prerequisites of release date and tracklist..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG guideline does not need anything except significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability criteria for albums is WP:NALBUMS, which requires a confirmed title, official release date, and full track list in addition to coverage in multiple reliable sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in believing that WP:NALBUMS must be met. If a topic meets any of the relevant notability guideline, then it is notable. NALBUMS co-exists with GNG; either one will suffice. GNG is a catch-all which opens the door for topics that are widely discussed in sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, WP:NALBUMS was made specifically for albums and requires more nuance. It exists for very good reason and is what should be applied. Meeting GNG—which is only a bare minimum threshold for any type of article—doesn't necessarily warrant an article when it fails criteria specifically made for certain types of articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your position (and it appears to be your main argument here) then you will want to point everybody to the policy page stating that NALBUMS is required even when GNG is met. Everywhere else, a GNG article is perfectly suitable. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "everywhere else"; for example, WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Focusing back on WP:NALBUMS, it also states "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release". Simply stating that an album is being released sometime in the future is definitely not sufficient enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a lot of info for this album. I know there's no official track list or release date, but Rihanna releasing the artwork shows intent that those bits of info will come available very shortly. There is so much commentary here that it is actually useful for readers want info. This is an encyclopedia after all... However, I would also not be oppose to Incubate either. But deleting this wealth of well written and well sourced material is a complete no-no. — Calvin999 11:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the artwork, title and details are all official and reliable. There's no point in deleting the article at this stage when it will obviously be recreated and/or expanded with info like the track listing and release date in due course anyway. Cool Marc 11:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why we waste time deleting or even incubating articles about upcoming album's by major recording artists that have received a lot of press coverage (even if they don't have a confirmed track list and release date). Let articles snowball! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told before by others that we aren't supposed to "let it snowball" when it doesn't meet notability criteria, regardless of who the artist is, and very well know better than to do that. WP:NALBUMS exists for good reason. Incubation is also most certainly NOT a "waste" of time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can arguably be speedily kept per WP:SK#1, since the nominator fails to advance an argument why this article fails the general notability guideline. sstflyer alt 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd; not only has there already been an "incubate" vote, but my rationale examined quite well how it doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, which is the criterion that applies for albums. Meeting general notability guideline doesn't necessarily mean it warrants an article if it fails criteria specifically made for the type of article. When a more specific criterion exists for an article, which is WP:NALBUMS in this case, the more specific criterion should be applied since it was specifically made for that type of article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per arguments above. Enough significant coverage by third-party reliable sources to constitute a valid article on Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Though no official release date nor track-listing (probably to prevent a leakage/immediate release), there is a significant amount of coverage for the article to sustain notability. However, the lead must at least reflect the contents of the article (So far the lead only has a single sentence). Chihciboy (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before and I will say it again; the fact that it doesn't have an official tracklist or release date means it in fact is NOT notable enough for an article. Don't let the sheer number of references or what they say fool you when none of them confirm a tracklist or release date. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a release date or track listing doesn't make it notable, despite being discussed extensively in reliable third-party publications, before and after its title was revealed? Yes, it is preferred that an album have a title, release date, and track list before having a standalone article, but that is only a guideline, to which there are occasional exceptions. This is an obvious one. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Only a guideline" is discouraged as an argument in AFD's and shouldn't be used as a cop-out like that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using it as a cop-out. I'm saying that as a guideline and not a hard rule, there are exceptions. The beauty of Wikipedia is that our guidelines and policies aren't hard rules, and topics that are obviously notable in the media that interest our readers can have articles even in unusual circumstances. I think you've made your point, Snuggums; there's no need to aggressively respond to everyone who disagrees with you. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For once I actually agree with everything Chase is saying here, Snuggums. There is so much info present which is linked to a large amount of high quality sources which pretty much makes it notable despite the absence of a confirmed tracklist. In this circumstance, deletion is not necessary. It's a unanimous keep amongst voters, so I think it would be best if you took it down a notch. I do see why you nominated it for deletion for that reason though, but as Chase said, they are guidelines, not rules. This article is an exception. — Calvin999 19:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I took to AFD is because original incubation was erroneously reverted. I would ideally have left it stay in draft space until it met all the WP:NALBUMS criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article incubation was reverted because it was undiscussed and lacked consensus. You could have at least started a move discussion, since obviously something like that is going to be contested, as evidenced by the keep votes in this AfD discussion. sst ✈ 04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notion that this doesn't meet notability criteria is absurd. As one of the most anticipated album releases of 2015, there is an abundance of coverage in reliable sources. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipated doesn't automatically mean it meets WP:NALBUMS. Besides, there isn't even any official confirmation it'll even be released in 2015. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present are more than enough to meet the GNG. As someone said above, you're just wikilawyering over one small detail (which isn't an end-all-be-all rule) and failing to understand the spirit of the title-tracklist-release guideline. Ever heard of Chinese Democracy? This is a very similar case. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we know from the sources that the album exists, has a title, and will be released, just not when. Passes the WP:CRYSTAL test, and is clearly notable per WP:NMUSIC. It's snowing in here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Majority of the sources listed comply to original research. Years later the album has got a title, the official artwork is out, there were promotions by Rihanna a few weeks back. Ok, the speculated track listing may be removed as there isn't confirmation what tracks are sure to be on the record. Surely, the context on this page is relevant to the upcoming album. There may be issues like unrefined prose or improper MOS but deletion? No, not at all. Don't delete the page, please. Arjann (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 no consensus. With WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ifereimi Boladau

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

Article lacks references altogether. Presumed notability under WP:NSPORT is a rebuttable presumption, and I have not been able to identify the necessary non-trivial coverage of this individual in multiple independent, reliable sources. Failing the appearance of these, it looks like the article should be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 18:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boladau has played for the Ospreys in the Pro 12, a professional competition. See here. The WP:NSPORTS guideline states that "A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered . . .a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995." It appears that Boladau meets the guideline. CUA 27 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a few references from reliable sources, though I think only the ESPNscrum reference is relevant to this discussion. Ospreys is a fully professional team in fully professional competitions.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SE&CV

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

I'm unable to find sources that suggests this model railroad as notable. It was proposed for deletion exactly 7 years ago and got cancelled, so that's why I'm here nominating it for deletion. TheGGoose (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I second his motion to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unless this can actually be improved, I'm not seeing anything here. Pinging past users Nick Number, The ed17 and Optimist on the run. here and the best my searches found were here. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD in 2013. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm neutral. My decline of the 2013 PROD was purely procedural. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), this article was to be deleted. The consensus was to delete all such lists. It was recreated without any deletion review discussion and the issues outlined at that deletion discussion are not addressed in the recreation of the content. It appears that the Wikipedians who commented on the last discussion were not aware of this previous discussion. The appropriate thing to do is remove this list from articlespace, clean it up, and then bring this list to WP:DRV for recreation. That is what is occurring at User:Bharatiya29/List of Hindu Nobel laureates which is the appropriate solution. If someone would like the list userfied, that would be acceptable to me. There, he or she could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have a proper discussion about whether the proposed content is encyclopedic. jps (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates (December 2010) postdates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) (July 2007), so the latter is no longer relevant. The 2010 decision was no consensus. Therefore, the rationale for this debate should be more specific about how the list is violating various policies. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2007 AfD is superseded by the 2010 AfD on this specific article, so it has no bearing on this discussion. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Praytell, how does "no consensus" supersede a documented consensus? jps (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why wouldn't it? A no consensus is an equally valid decision, and more recent decisions are more valid because Wikipedia's policies have developed over time. At the time of the 2007 decision was made, there was no notability criterion for stand-alone lists (see this version of Wikipedia:Notability). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see that WP:NOTESAL ever came into consideration during the "no consensus" discussion. I have never heard someone argue that a discussion which was closed as "no consensus" actually could overturn a consensus. That's a completely new one to me! If you think that notability rules have changed to become more inclusive of lists that try to identify people's religions, go ahead and say that. I don't see much evidence for it. jps (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only relevant question here is if Nobel Prize laureates are identified in the real world by their shared Jewish religion and the evidence is that they are, both as individuals and as a group. Burton Feldman's The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige, appendices are provided listing and grouping by country, by women, by family and Jewish laureates; no other religious scheme is identified, and we do identify Nobel laureates by nation, by sex and by family. In "Interview: Richard Dawkins Keeps Making New Enemies; The famed atheist talks about the Pope, fiction, and why Jews win Nobel Prizes", an interview of Richard Dawkins published in The Atlantic, Dawkins notes at length that "I should have compared religion with religion and compared Islam not with Trinity College but with Jews, because the number of Jews who have won Nobel Prizes is phenomenally high.' and "... I don’t think it is a minor thing; it is colossal. I think more than 20 percent of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews". The David Duke web site points to The Jewish Bias of the Nobel Prize, which documents the phenomenon. I could also point to the dozens of sources available online showing "Jewish Nobel laureates" as a real-world means of categorization, but the more than 250 sources included in the article should stand as further evidence. It seems that people of all religions join atheists and anti-Semites in recognizing this as an appropriate grouping mechanism. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Anyone who uses David Duke as an argument to keep this page should be dismissed out of hand and probably indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. WP:BADSITES indeed! jps (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Settle down, jps. Alansohn is a reliable and diligent editor who works on geography. He seems to have googled around to discover how widepresd the Jewish Nobel Prize lists are, and I suspect that Duke googles well (alas). Alansohn may not have even known who David Duke is. Or he may have been citing Duke as an extreme example. I prefer to WP:AGF. We all tend to write carelessly at times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people not to base their arguments on David Duke and to completely discount anyone who bases their arguments for keeping content on Wikipedia on a source written by David Duke. jps (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Alansohn was making the quite reasonable point that even anti-Semites recognise this as a category, as well as atheists and people of various religions. Of course David Duke would not be an appropriate source for article content, but it is perfectly valid to mention him in a discussion. 86.24.88.241 (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My scholarly reason for voting KEEP is that there is a burgeoning body of research supporting the idea that the cultural tradition in which an individual is reared have an impact on what an individual does adult life on many levels, including the production of ideas. i.e., your ethnic heritage may have an impact on whether you are likely to engage in the kind of thought production that wins a Nobel Prize. I do not see that this body of work was discussed in the 2007 debate. My more straightforward reason is that the world has moved on, Wikipedia has long included articles on Muslim and of Hindu prize winners. Makes it hard to delete the article on Jewish ones. I am also persuaded by User:Alansohn's point, the lists and articles on the predominance of Jews among winners of the Nobel Prizes makes this a topic of patent and demonstrable significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, we are currently discussing every single list of Nobel laureates based on WP:CAT/R arguments. The last time we had an omnibus discussion on the subject, the consensus was to delete all. It may be that consensus changed, but we have the firm opportunity now to either confirm or deny the outcome of the previous discussion. jps (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many hundred publications which mention "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" in Google books alone [1]. Why can't we have a page about it? This could be even a regular page. The criteria for creating lists are less strict. Here, it would be enough to have a "notable intersection" of two categories, which we also have. The nominator did not provide any arguments why such list would not be appropriate for encyclopedia.My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources such as this indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was another discussion of this list in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates with a no consensus decision in March 2012. I have added it in a somewhat awkward fashion to the box at the top. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Been there done that. Scholarly subject matter as established ad nauseum here and in prior afd's. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and properly sourced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's an important part of Jewish history and world history, many books written about this topic, and it's all backed up by WP:N & WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the arguments by My very best wishes seem convincing here. Dorpater (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not us making the call about whether or not to discuss this thing, it's the sources, so it's not original synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable topic and there been a several studies about it.--Jobas (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with proposer the WP policies appear to support the article's form and the above arguments opposing all are saying basically the same thing, that the article is consistent with WP guidelines. The article falls short on at least one glaring misconception. It is an accepted convention today that one's religion is that which has been professed or announced. A great number of the subjects of the article make/made no such revelation and on the talk page numerous examples have been raised of laureates who maintained no personal connection or interest with Judaism. The verified content is misleading as the statements used for reference are in the main assumptions based on ancestry. The article content does not address this confusion except for a footnote, rather it repeatedly courts controversy by failing to clearly define its subject area.--Mevagiss (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep. While it is true that the article was previously deleted in 2007 and was recreated without a DRV, the consensus here is that this argument was already deployed in the most recent AFD, which closed "no consensus", and that it is therefore inappropriate to re-run the same argument so soon afterwards in search of a different outcome. The underlying "no consensus" decision of the most recent AFD stands. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Nobel laureates

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), this article was to be deleted. The closing administrator at the last deletion discussion suggested an RfC which, essentially, already occurred in the AfD linked above! The consensus was to delete all such lists. It was recreated without any deletion review discussion and the issues outlined at that deletion discussion are not addressed in the recreation of the content. It appears that the Wikipedians who commented on the last discussion were not aware of this previous discussion. The appropriate thing to do is remove this list from articlespace, clean it up, and then bring this list to WP:DRV for recreation. That is what is occurring at User:Bharatiya29/List of Hindu Nobel laureates which is the appropriate solution. If the creator of this list who did it out-of-process would like the list userfied, that would be acceptable to me. There, he could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have a proper discussion about whether the proposed content is encyclopedic. Note that a "no consensus" closure default to keep is not a protection against future AfDs. jps (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) was decided in July 2007 while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates was just a week ago and had a no consensu result. Trying to overturn such a recent decision by appealing to an eight year old decision is just wikilawyering. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it Wikilawyering? The consensus to delete was clear. There was never a consensus to recreate. You can argue that we should ignore all rules in this case or that we shouldn't be beholden to process, but at least be honest that this is what you are appealing to. I'm pointing out that the community did have consensus on such religion-tagging lists and that these lists were recreated out-of-process and without regard to the previous discussion's documented consensus. jps (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's wikilawyering because you're not identifying any arguments from the old discussion that were missed in the recent decision. The lack of consensus in the more recent discussion was also clear, and Wikipedia policies have developed over time. At the time of the 2007 decision, there was no notability criterion for stand-alone lists (see this version of Wikipedia:Notability). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of the arguments in the old discussion seemed to be missed. Read the nominator's rationale. Now see if it is reflected in the last discussion. It isn't. Re-discussing a discussion which was closed with clear consensus effectively seems to me to be a waste of time, yet here we are. jps (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're the one re-opening the discussion. The burden is on you to identify the arguments that were overlooked and show they apply to the current version of the article. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I did that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether that was done or not. jps (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was ready to reconsider until I realized that the debate being cited took place in 2007. A long discussion has gone on here that was closed just a few days ago as no consensus. Frankly, I fail to see the point of doing this all over again. But if we do, my vote will still be to KEEP, and my rationale will not have changed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My scholarly reason for voting KEEP is that there is a burgeoning body of research supporting the idea that the cultural tradition in which an individual is reared have an impact on what an individual does adult life on many levels, including the production of ideas. i.e., your ethnic heritage may have an impact on whether you are likely to engage in the kind of thought production that wins a Nobel Prize. I do not see that this body of work was discussed in the 2007 debate. My more straightforward reason is that the world has moved on, Wikipedia has long included article son Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish prize winners. Makes it hard to delete the article on Christian ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but just to be clear the only reason I'm reopening this is because I was surprised that there was never a proper WP:DRV which dealt substantially with the claims of the 2007 discussion, which, I think, is still a valid discussion to consider in light of the current state of the article. If this AfD turns into a de facto WP:DRV discussion, so be it. However, I don't see this point being discussed at all in the previous discussion which worried me greatly since it is such a clean decision and seems to have caused problems elsewhere. To be sure, I think writing an article on religious identity and Nobel Prizes might be worthwhile, but the listicle fashion that we are seeing here looks to be extremely problematic to me. jps (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not voting keep based on any rationale, but I'm opposed to attempting a second run at deletion so soon after a previous discussion resulted in no consensus. Drop the stick and stop wasting our time. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a large majority vote for keep the last time around and the reasons remain valid. Please stop wasting our time with tendentious nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, it was re-created out of process and now it's vexatious to AfD it again? How does that work? Guy (Help!) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of SK is to avoid wasting time on such unproductive discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the first AfD was closed correctly. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate and sourced list related to the subject of Science and religion. Nominator did not provide any valid (content-based) arguments for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per last nomination, this page is an FYI page and is useful for those interested in the intersection of science and religion, considering that some popular writings have used such info to generate discourse on it.Mayan1990 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Xxanthippe makes a good case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Absolutely NO reason to delete such an article, especially one well-sourced and of good length and relevance like this. In fact, the mere nomination is exposing the agendas of many of the users on this site. Good to see some of us have good sense at least.--Sιgε |д･) 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per WP:DELAFD cited above. Roches (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Andrew D. above: A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." I can't say it any better than that. What I can do is to add WP:SOAPBOX and WP:PUSH as a reminder to why it can be disruptive. Come once, have your say, and let the outcome rest. Personal advocacy and opinion has its place and its time in WP decision-making processes (like a first-time nomination), but repeated pushing of agenda becomes a form of incivility. It is no longer about a decision made in 2007. There has been an update now. A failure to reach a consensus does not constitute an excuse for failing to recognize the support that each side has, and to respect the impasse. Evensteven (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep/snow close per outcome of last week's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates. The nominator should know better than to renominate this a week after the last AFD. Edgeweyes (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rizin Fighting Federation

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts organisation. Recently formed. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brand new MMA organization that is months away from running their first fight card. Fails to meet WP:NORG and the lack of significant coverage means it also fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better can be accomplished. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have helped cleaned up the article and added proper information with sources that relate to this promotion. There has been some decent coverage of this new organization among MMA media. Furthermore, there will be more information released by Sakakibara and RIZIN about this new organization within the coming months. (FistsOfFury123 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is better but the main issues still remain. Predicting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL and their have been a number of mixed martial arts organisations that are functioning there were deleted after AfD on notability grounds, length of existence, and coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still no indication of notability. References are PR and fight announcements, not significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy if needed. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liste des Youtubeurs francophones

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

Machine translation:This is a list of non-

The term YouTubers designate users who post videos on YouTube and have a few thousand subscribers to their credit. Some YouTube personalities have partnerships with brands, their videos are monetized. The YouTubeurs can have multiple channels, including chains Vlogs, videos showing moments of their daily lives.

This is a list of non-notable people and fails WP:NLIST. Individually there is no claim of significance that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO Jbh ^Talk 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know this doesn't sound very guideline based, but why should we be interested in a list in French a bout French Youtubers? It's almost certain to be a list of non notable people per WP:LISTPEOPLE anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has just been deleted CSD A12 twice on the French Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the same policy applies here, though there appears to be some similarities to our CSD A11. Adam9007 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Any YouTubers here with sufficient demonstration of notability should simply be added to List of YouTubers. But no one deserves to be on any Wikipedia list merely by existing, no matter what language they speak. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this one is pretty obvious. No encyclopedic content whatsoever, it's not even in English. r a y u k k. 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Los

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

Non-notable martial artist. Junior athletes are not generally considered notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Teenage karateka who competes as a blue belt. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and clearly isn't close to meeting WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I know this guy. And he wins on European Championships of Shotokan Karate. What prevents us write Wikipedia about the juniors European champions? He has a lot of gold medals. Bennort (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishments as a junior are almost never considered notable, certainly not winning a medal in a 11-12 (or 13-14) year old blue belt division. WP:NSPORTS requires competing at the highest level, and that he hasn't done. Most martial arts competitors I know have more medals and trophies than they have room to store them, so that doesn't meet any notability criteria. WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient reason for keeping an article. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity. But I can't argue with the criteria.Bennort (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm writed about Pavel in Japanesse and Belarusian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennort (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different WIki have different notability requirements or are less strict. In this case it makes more sense to have it in the Belarus wiki.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mersenne prime. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8191 (number)

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

Unremarkable number. Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: Copied from page on Mersenne primes. Omega Buddy¹³_{find me here}

Redirect to Mersenne prime. The correct criterion is not CRYSTAL (this is not a likely future discovery but rather something discovered in the 15th century), but Wikipedia:Notability (numbers): we need "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties" (or clear cultural significance). Although 8191 is listed in several important sequences in OEIS, they all relate closely to the same fact, that it is one less than a power of two, so they are not unrelated. But as a Mersenne prime it is important enough (one of the first five) to warrant a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mersenne prime. I thought about this, and I will allow my article to be deleted. Omega Buddy¹³_{find me here} @David Eppstein: Agree with you. --OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S We should maybe make it a redirect until someone can actually take the time to write an article on a number that has nothing special about it, other than the fact that it's just another M_p, anyways. Omega Buddy¹³_{find me here}

Redirect to 8000 (number) where it is already mentioned as a Mersenne prime. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 8000 (number) per Praemonitus. PamD 14:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: That redirect wouldn't be the most reasonable thing to do, and it simply supports the page being its own thing. As I said earlier, I do still agree that it should be redirected. Omega Buddy¹³_{find me here} 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If additional facts are discovered that can be mentioned for this number, then it can be readily inserted onto the '8000 (number)' article. The same can not be said for the 'Mersenne prime' article. Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mersenne prime as long as that is the only thing the number is known for. Readers will most likely be looking for that connection when looking up 8191, and avoiding 8000 (number) saves them a step. If other facts concerning 8191 are added to 8000 (number), then redirect 8191 (number) to 8000 (number), as Praemonitus proposed. I'd say being a Mersenne prime is important enough fro the article not to be deleted altogether. Gap9551 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wincenty of Kielcza

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

Definitely existed, but nothing to show notability. There were several hits on the different search engines (scholar and books in particular), but all were brief mentions. Article has existed since 2007 without a single reference added. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Medieval and ancient historical figures can often be notable for accomplishments of enduring note, even though we often do not know things like where and in what year they were born.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wincenty and his works seem to be discussed in some detail in 19th-century journals, see for example [2]. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Deletion of a Polish priest living in the 1200s for lack of extensive Google footprint is ludicrous. Inactivity rationale has no basis in deletion policy. There is no WP:deadline. Furthermore, a simple check on the Polish wiki page reveals plenty of references that the nominee could have added to improve the article instead of booting it. What an encyclopedic counterproductive nomination AccidentRecorder (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a citation to the article.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of his creation of a major, significant work of literature: the first distinctly Polish hymn. Here's a source that can be added [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable as is evident from the corresponding article in Polish Wikipedia. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons listed above by others, and a quick search revealed there is more info available that can be used to expand this stub. I intend to work on it. Rockypedia (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words of Farewell

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

Can't find anything which will satisfy WP:BAND although I could be wrong. scope_creep (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, difficult to research, since the name is such a common term, but searches on the engines appear not to have any results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to deletion action. This page used to be a redirect to an anime episode. At some point it was converted to an article on a metal band. It would need to be reverted to that redirect version instead of a deletion. It would be best to retain the full article history which has been migrated to the list as legally required by the free license. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Objection* Please note the following for your convenience:

1. The band is in fact easy to research. Go to Google and type in the band's name. You simply come up with hundreds of results regarding the band. Go to YouTube and type in Words of Farewell. The first several results are songs of the band. You can also check it out on any of the external links that have been provided on the article page.
2. There is a Full Metal Alchemist episode of the same name - however there has never been a page for it. Instead the "Words of Farewell" page redirected to the full list of the anime's episodes. A disambiguation page has been created and placed on the article page so it can link to the anime episode as well. --ShockD (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as they're simply no signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. The existing sources are exactly the type of sources that don't make for notability. As to the redirect, the redirect to the anime episode can be restored afterward. --Bejnar (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Type of sources that don't make for notability? Again with the double standards I see. But don't get me wrong - I don't care whether these 4kb deleted or not. It's just the double standards of Wikipedia. Tell me, if there should be only notable artists on here reviewed by your favorite websites why don't you go ahead and delete 80% of Wikipedia's artist pages because they are not notable? --ShockD (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The type of sources that don't make for notability include press-releases, blogs, forums and fan-sites. See WP:V#Reliable sources. Reliable sources are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Bejnar (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have posted reliable sources then. Also I'm left with the impression that you think that reliability and notability are the same thing. And since everybody has an opinion and WP is not a place of opinions you can go ahead and post all of the reliable sources allowed for artist-related pages. Otherwise if one's word overrides another one's word then it's pure bias. I'll ask again - why don't you go ahead and delete most of WP's artist pages for not being notable enough? --ShockD (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ShockD: I'm sorry, what specific sources did you think were reliable and substantive? --Bejnar (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I used have actually been used on numerous artist pages all around Wikipedia. That's why I'm asking about the double standards. Or it's just that there are random articles that get picked for review? And what are your reliable sources? --ShockD (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ShockD: I'm sorry, what specific sources with relation to the article under discussion, Words of Farewell, did you think were reliable and substantive? --Bejnar (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specific sources do you think are reliable and substantive with a reputation for fact-checking? --ShockD (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that with regard to Words of Farewell I found none. Of the three cited in the article, (1) AFM Records is not an independent source, it is the label for Words of Farewell. (2) metal-archives.com is nothing more than a directory listing. (3) "Interview with Words Of Farewell" from The Grim Towere is an interview, see the discussion at the essay WP:Interviews for the infirmaties of interviews. As to others, listing of lyrics such as at darylyrics is not one, neither are PR releases like thee one at metalstorm. If you mean other than in reference to Words of Farewell, that question really isn't relevant here, but in general see things like the book Guida al Nuovo Progressive Rock 1990-2008. --Bejnar (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I can cite sources in foreign languages would it be a problem if I just copy the sources from the German article then? --ShockD (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying without evaluation is not proper. See WP:Citing sources: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Citing less than reliable sources is problematic. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's there and it hasn't been marked for deletion then this means it's reliable enough. Unless we're applying WP:Double standards again. --ShockD (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No double standard. Everything is subject to review, allowing time between reviews for conditions to change, tempers to cool, etc. See, for example, WP:RELIST. Your statement If it's there and it hasn't been marked for deletion then this means it's reliable enough. is patently false as WP:Afd demonstrates everyday. This encyclopaedia is primarily staffed by volunteers, who are not everywhere at once. That is why at WP:Afd we focus on the sprcific article in front of us and not on WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Bejnar (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all wrong. I have created enough articles to know that not everything is reviewed, even in years. Not that it matters... --ShockD (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamila Porczyk

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA. Other claims to notability are winning of relatively unknown competitions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete Definitely non-notable in MMA with only 2 fights, neither top tier. Not sure whether those competitions show enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out the weak part of my vote since there's no indication she's a notable entertainer.Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous comments about her MMA notability. My search didn't find significant independent coverage to show the Miss Universe Fitness pageant wins were significant and her appearances on Polish television shows didn't generate the coverage I'd say was needed to meet WP:GNG. Most of the coverage I found was routine sports reporting on her MMA appearances, but she clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. It may be that there are sources in Polish that I didn't find, but my vote is based on what my search found (or didn't find). Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so appearing on TV comedy show with sources such as Święta wojna isn't notable either then. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a comedy show isn't enough to show notability unless you can show she meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even any evidence she was on that show. She's not listed in the show's article as part of the cast or at the article's source at IMDB. Papaursa (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As this was the fifth deletion, I have also salted the title (protected it against re-creation). That does not prevent creation of an article if in future he becomes notable: protection can be removed by any administrator if an acceptable draft is accepted at WP:Articles for creation. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Lasri

AfDs for this article:

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

This is more or less the same article that went through an AFD almost three years ago. The original author has had a major issue with COI and sockpuppetry, and right now this page is almost identical with the one found on User:Jamal Lasri (Chemist); although the two articles haven't been edited by the same IP or user as far as I can tell. I've done a couple of checks, but I see nothing that changes the outcome of the previous AFD. Just about all sources in the article seems to be either citations from his published papers, or links to biography pages on various University websites. The only reason I'm not CSD'ing this is the three years span since the last AFD. Bjelleklang - talk 07:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite being full professor now the citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see anything else. So even if there weren't the sockpuppetry/COI problems, I don't see a reason to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at it and I agree, I can't find anything that meets theWP:PROF criteria. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a brilliant scientist who works in different universities: Morocco, Spain, Portugal and Saudi Arabia. In Portugal, he published several research articles in collaboration with the Ex-Minister of Education and Universities (VIII constitutional government of Portugal) Prof. João J. R. Fraústo da Silva. He also speaks 5 languages, and published in different fiels of research (organic and coordination chemistry and catalysis), he has articles in the top chemistry journals. Moreover, the current article is a notable topic of high interest to the general public with enough available sources. Neverthelesss, some other references/publications are needed though (which is not a case of deleting the article but of improving it). elisabete alegria (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — elisabete alegria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a somewhat careful search using WoS and, after removing quite a few high-citation publications from Jacob Lasri (who was at Technion, Northwestern, et al, and who is a different person from the subject), I find a publication list having citations: 38, 35, 31, 29 (h-index 14). The highest citation papers in this list have many authors and seem to come from the lab of Armando Pombeiro. That is, it does not appear that Lasri was the PI or sole investigator, but rather a lab member of some kind. He may be a "brilliant scientist", as our colleague asserts above, but the standard metrics by which a scientist in a high-citation discipline is assessed here at WP do not yet indicate notability. This is probably WP:TOOSOON. The history of the article does not help. I would suggest that proponents and other interested editors revisit this entry once Lasri has a higher scientific impact that can clearly be associated with him as an individual. Agricola44 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Not notable. Article has been deleted four times in the past and hence an admin should consider WP:SALT. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that this passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Read House Hotel, Chattanooga, TN

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

Article on this "historic" hotel appears to lack evidence of realworld notability in terms of being supported by multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover it in non-trivial manner. Current article appears to be a promotional piece for the hotel, probably written by someone who works there but has not self-identified as having a COI. KDS4444^Talk 11:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG. Most news sources are local, however book sources and a source from AOL Travel surmounts this. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Haunted Tennessee". pp. 96–98.
^ "Looking Beyond the Highway". pp. 123–125.
^ "Chattanooga Mythbusters". AOL Travel News.
^ Chattanooga: delivering the dream. p. 141. (subscription required)
^ "Downtown hotel angers Ironman contestants with overbooking glitch". timesfreepress.com.

Keep: I cannot believe the nominator originally put this up for speedy deletion. A regular prod would have been completely fine, but it was apparent from the first edit that the creator was a making a claim for notability, which it indeed seems to meet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Its on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Hamilton County, Tennessee, I added an infobox with link.[4]. After AFD is closed let's move to something like The Read House.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a handful of {{cite book}}s, and there's plenty more. Subject meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiansand Bus Sogndalen Lines

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

Non-notable bus line. Rettetast (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note also that same user has created multiple similar articles on seemingly non-notable local bus lines in Kristiansand. Manxruler (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, local bus lines, delete per WP:BUSOUTCOMES. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khmer words of Chinese origin

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

Multiple good reasons: 1) all original research, no sources 2) of all the languages influencing Khmer, Chinese probably had the least influence...all of the words in the list are merely transliterations of Proper Nouns (given names or surnames), or names for specifically Chinese things, not organic borrowings or loanwords per se. They aren't "Khmer words", they are still recognized as being Chinese. The only words on this list that are actual borrowings that replaced native words are the numbers, but they were borrowed from Thai (which ultimately did borrow them from Chinese, but they were borrowed into Khmer after they were fully "Thai-ified"), making this list meaningless William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by WP:Not a dictionary.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as original research and an unencyclopaedic topic per WP:Not a dictionary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. While, in theory, such an article or list could be created, as written it has no way to source: it's pure WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Darling

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

Self-published author with minimal coverage. Fails general notability. Blackguard 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All edits are made by a single account, which refuses to respond to requests regarding connection to the subject person of the page.

I apologize and I did not refuse requests about connection - I am new and just learning this system - when I joined Wikipedia as an assignment for one of my college writing classes, Wikipedia suggested for me to view a list of pages marked "to be added". I went down the list and searched until I found one with sources and information. I have no prior knowledge of this author, but when I read her bio and history and found several links to person, I decided to use for my first page creation as it struck me as interesting and unusual, per Wiki guidelines: "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. I sent an email to author requesting permission to create a page with her bio. I was given permission to use photos. Also email included the fact that she was not an "Established author" but up and coming author who would be signed and published by the end of 2015. Also informed that several interviews would be published with the author, both locally and one national coverage when her second novel was published. She was extremely grateful and very responsive to my inquiries.

I thought the point of Wiki was to create pages of up-and-coming pages of interest, in which people might search based on recent events.

Not personally caring whether the page stays or goes, but not clear based on Wiki guidelines why a page would be deleted if it is listed on the page suggestions for new users like me to actually pick one from the list, research it and create a page? --SusanJenkins (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mgs2804 (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Searches produced noting. this is classic self-promotion for first-time author of new work of genre fiction with no evidence of notability found of either author or book. The most generous thing that can be said here is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was done as a student assignment rather than self-promotion. Offhand I'm inclined to believe them, since the page does give off student vibes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I do wish students would use their access to university library archives to write up the many people of significant accomplishment figures who don't have articles because they lived in the pre-internet world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-I did put a prod up for this earlier, I can't find much notability for her at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Slightly off-topic comment: I didn't know there was something like a list of pages marked "to be added"; anyone care to share directions? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Skyscape Archaeology

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

Another new journal claiming it has notability under "historic purpose" because of it being the only journal covering a certain specialized subject. With one issue published, it's perhaps a wee bit too soon to speak about "historic". PROD reason stand: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Fails all three criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT: it doesn't have an impact factor and isn't included in selective databases, per Criterion 1; it's too new to have been frequently cited, per Criterion 2; likewise, it's too new to have had any historic impact, per Criterion 3. The lack of any independent sources makes it fall afoul of WP:GNG, as well. An article might be fitting a few years from now, once the journal has had a chance to make an impact. clpo13_(talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Randykitty and Clpo13's comments above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, with a partial move of the main points to some overarching article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinodh Reddy Chennu

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

Appears to be a self-published piece about someone with no notability. Searches turned up nothing about this individual. The current sources are all primary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those are not self-published piece. He was student coordinator at NSS in 2013. Look at citations once — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshred (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet comment. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, it is not self-published. citation shows he is also editor-in-chief for Mechanical Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatdude (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)~~ Struck sockpuppet comment. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article stated on his talk page that he is Vinodh Reddy Chennu, as you can see here, so I think we can accept that it is self-published. 80.168.236.223 (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FYI, Vrc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (with the same initials as the article's subject) removed the AFD notice and Santhoshred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Venkatdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Indianhamara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized this page (the latter also untranscluded it). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was indeed correctly transcluded; the problem is that User:Venkatdude removed it. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the sources are not reliable and/or do not support a claim of notability. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinodhchennu. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Non-notable individual. -KH-1 (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinodhchennu (talk • contribs) 09:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTRESUME. No evidence of notability. No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete as there's simply nothing to suggest acception at this time. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was N/A. Don't know what a strong merge is, but please discuss that on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Vasanai (TV series)

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

Dubbed in Tamil, this article should Strongly merged in Balika Vadhu Derevation^{Give Me Five} 06:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Derevation^{Give Me Five} 07:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Derevation: If you are proposing merger, why raise AfD? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meets both, because Tamil dub doesn't signifies much plus no other sources are found in it. Well seemingly if deleted, it wont be a big issue my friend! Derevation^{Give Me Five} 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And how come dub article is created? Does it really make a sense? Derevation^{Give Me Five} 09:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do both. If you want it merged, start a merger discussion. If you want it deleted, continue with this AfD. Make up your mind and state what you want. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushik Banerjee

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

Don't believe this person is notable. Lots of unsubstantiated claims in the article and dead links. The abilityfoundation links given don't even mention him. Can't find any RS. And this article was the authors one and only contribution to WP Gbawden (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as Books, News, browser and WP:INDAFD found some links but likely not enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. from what is said, the film is probably not notable and he almsot certainly isn't. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the person and the film are not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a lack of coverage. Deadlinks seemed to be blogs. The film does not appear to be notable either. --Bejnar (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Gloster

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

Don't believe this person meets GNG. The only references for her are the scouting sites. Being awarded an OBE doesn't make her notable either Gbawden (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have agre\eed in many discussion not to accept OBE as sufficient proof. I remain uncertain about that, but there's been a clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can't find "significant coverage in reliable sources". Might be worthy of a mention in a list, but not of a stand-alone article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prince Himalaya of Nepal. Don't usually close on 1 !vote but it's been up 3 weeks and I honestly can't see any more !votes coming so wrapping it up somewhat early. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Princep Shah of Nepal

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

Not notable: essentially WP:NOTINHERITED. Charity work and attending the coronations of other monarchs are unremarkable activities for a consort. TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prince Himalaya of Nepal likely as I found a few links at Books and browser but nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vithal Venkatesh Kamat

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

Questionably notable as the best I found was this, this, this and this and the article would certainly need improvement to be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article subject is a successful businessman, but the sources do not show encyclopedic notability. Mentions of awards for the hotel do not tranfer to the proprietor. I can see a case for the hotel having an article, but even that may be a stretch. Notability is not inherited, and subject does not meet WP:GNG alone. Scr★pIron^IV 19:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional and non notable. The awards if looked at m are actually fairly minor. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Tycoon

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only review is from GameZone—no other meaningful review hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 03:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I'm not seeing convincing improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just aren't any sources here past an announcement or two and the review. There's no breadth of coverage here. I very much appreciate the efforts of czar to follow WP:BEFORE and solicit for sources; they are both refreshing courtesies here. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Profita

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

Is he notable and can this be better improved? I'm not entirely sure as my searches only found some links here and there here, here, here, here and here. Maybe others familiar with this or its field can help as this has also barely changed since July 2008. Notifying past users AllyD and Favonian. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find him name-checked in Italian newspapers, and he did hold a directorship of what seems to be the Italian equivalent of the Authors Guild for a time. However, I don't find any significant sources about him, and there are none to crib from in the Italian version of the article. (This appears to be pretty directly a translation of that.) Therefore, I think this is a delete for now, unless someone comes up with better sources; and it could always be re-created in the future. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If " General Manager " of the two organizations listed is head of those agencies, it would be a keep, for we keep people in such positions. But I cannot asoltrely tell, as I do not know know Italian organizational systems.Sincethe previoused think it was a directorship, I'msatisafied. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep First, the creator of the article is "Assistenteprofita" -- that is, "Profita's assistant". *sigh* However, he is known in Italy, not always for the better. I found articles [here, here, although only the first one is substantial. However, that he held a position in the ministero dei Beni culturali, albeit for only two years, may be enough to keep. The article is minimal and should be expanded, with additional references. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. reasonably clear consensus of uninvolved editors DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Matton

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

The article's creator disclosed that the article has been deleted before under his birth name Johan Matton; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Matton (3rd nomination) and Talk:John Matton. It looks like there are actually three past deletions and that a previous AFD raised some suspicion of dishonesty. I am admittedly not a film expert, but I think the new material concerns minor film festivals rather than contributing to notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (I am not an advanced wikipedia user but I know whom this actor/producer is from attending Long Beach International Film Festival this year, where he won the Jury and the Audience Award and I went to see his wikipedia.) John Matton has more than 20 articles and won many major awards - a news search for Johan Matton and John Matton was required because I was confues regarding his name but this person is very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.98.82 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I created the article based on new information and wanted to be clear that the previous deleted page Johan Matton covered older material. The new awards won by John Matton do hold significant press and notability and he does cover some direct press and many indirect articles. I also had a look at his Swedish Wikipedia for more information since I'm half Swedish and speak the language. But the major contribution on the topic here I believe is John's position and involvement with Nordic International Film Festival which seems to be a fast growing community and organization with consulates involved from Iceland,Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark ^[1] I see that the previous deletion of Johan Matton was mainly "too soon" and I believe the new press calls for a different verdict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.98.170 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ www.nordicfilmfest.org

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now Regretfully only one award-winning work is WP:TOOSOON for WP:NACTOR, nor does the founding of Nordic International Film Festival (only happened once so far) add to the notability for now. Plus for now all the awards are towards the film Till We Meet Again (2015 film) than Matton himself. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: regarding last post: All awards are awarded to the Producer as of: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3943314/awards?ref_=nm_awd (All awards John Matton won is listed in the publications, since IMDb is not a valide source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.98.82 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please close Afd Discussion should be closed as KEEP - Major significant and notable information was added after Afd discussion was created, the article was being built at the time Afd was created. The article is now completed. Article and subject is notable, if any concern a new Afd should be created.

Delete. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the awards are major, I'll even call the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival Awards a joke, a monthly festival that gives out ~50 awrds each month, a major award farm. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 03:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Men's Junior Handball Championship

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

Non-notable event Flat Out (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A continental championship in a pro sport like Handball looks quite notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its a junior event, not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm unfamiliar with this area of Wikipedia, but looking at the related categories in handball and other sports, this would appear to be in keeping with the thresholds for notability and relevance (unless the South American version of this is somehow more inherently notable). And while Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't quite a proper argument, consistency in an encyclopedia does matter and I would presume that someone inquiring into international handball might wonder why one continent's event is missing from a list of others. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it would seem that the article at Pan American Men's Junior Handball Championship suffers from the same problems as this one, lack of sources and apparent lack of coverage. Almost all the coverage, and the only substantive coverage, seems to be from related sites, such as the International Handball Federation. --Bejnar (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They all seems to suffer from the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Also note WP:OTHERTHINGS. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and Bejnar, who present the only policy/guideline substantiated arguments. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More refs from not-related sources are now added to the article. Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG 73.138.114.150 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How and based on what exactly ? It looks like this IP only enjoys to vote for delete. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:44, 4 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. Cannot see any clear consensus here. Since it has been relisted thrice, been open for too long (a month), closing it. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Women's Junior Handball Championship

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

Non-notable event Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A continental championship in a pro sport like Handball looks quite notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes but this is a junior event not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar tournaments from other continents have good articles, we just have to add more info on the Asian one. Charlie the Pig (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cannot see any clear consensus here. Since it has been relisted thrice, been open for too long (a month), closing it. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Men's Youth Handball Championship

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

No-notable event. Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A continental championship in a pro sport like Handball looks quite notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a youth series it is not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to JayFrance#Discography. Duplicate. Redirection to existing sections/articles is preferred to AFD in such circumstances, and should at least be attempted first. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JayFrance production discography

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

Simple duplication of JayFrance#Discography

Given that article (created a day ago) is wearing an unref tag dated from July, I also wonder if that article is a new recreation of an old deleted article? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created for adding non-single music production discographies from past and or future references. MikeJamesz

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as any necessary information is best at the first article. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significance currently to warrant its own article. The appropriate place is on the artist's page, where it is already included. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Małgorzata Tracz

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

Małgorzata Tracz is co-leader on non-parliamentarian party, which contains about 500 members. She is not notable politician (as for today) to have an article in Wikipedia. Her biography was also in the Polish Wikipedia, where was just deleted. Kmicic (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template or listing in a daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 01:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or simply redirect to party's article as I'm not familiar nor speaker of Polish politics but if this is not independently notable yet, moving to the group's article should suffice as well. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (but postpone decision until late October's elections). I see one regional source of some reliability ([5]), but as a politician, she and her party are pretty much a non-entity, and the sources are lacking. However, I'd suggest userfying rather than deleting, sooner or later she may be elected to the national parliament, and thus become notable. In fact, the elections are this weekend, so postponing the decision on this for a week or two may solve our problems (if she is elected, this should be kept immediately). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify Seems like an article that popped up for political reasons. I can't read the sources, but seeing as other editors have said they are weak, I would agree that this article should be deleted. I also believe that the article should be deleted as soon as consensus is found. Octobers Polish elections should have no bearing on the validity of an article even if there is a chance for the party to be elected. If it needs to be recovered in the future due to that party being nominated, so be it. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist per Piotrus' suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poland's Green Party was part of a larger United Left coalition for the election just concluded. This alliance won no seats. --Finngall ^talk 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. looks just short Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALinux

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

Non-notable OS, seems to be discontinued, no significant reliable coverage. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : The article isn't especially good or useful, and probably results from the confusing Wikipedia policy that entries in a list must nearly always link to an article (as in Wikipedia:PROSE ). In some of the distributions, like Kogaionon, the editor of the list simply linked to the notable thing the distribution was named for -- which is a wholly improper result, but the only real response to what seems to be the policy. Here, this article is linked from List of Linux distributions, and without it, the list will be incomplete for no good reason. Perhaps someone with a clearer grasp of the policy can explain how this apparent conflict is resolved.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be (relatively) recently discontinued, but certainly isn't notable. This was all I found on it. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, it's possible that a stub was created just so that it could be added to a list of Linux distributions. However, we are under no obligation to keep these kinds of articles. We're not a directory listing or indiscriminate collection of information. Articles must satisfy our inclusion criteria. There are other places on the Internet that can and do catalog every single Linux distribution, such as DistroWatch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some sources, especially if you search using the old name ("Peanut Linux"). aLinux distro 2005-2015 (during which it had to compete with Puppy Linux), fka Peanut Linux distro 1996-2005 (during which it did not); at various points aLinux/Peanut was a debian derivative and/or a slackware derivatve. Primary person responsible was Jay Klepacs (of Canada). This was one of the lightweight-distros-yet-full-featured-distros, a bit heavier than Puppy Linux but about the same as Vector Linux (and of course considerably heavier than Damn Small Linux and Tiny Core Linux and other uber-tiny-distros), but often included in the same category by the press as them, since the project-goals were similar.

Michael P. Deignan. "Slim Pickings: Two Linux distributions trim the fat". CNET News. Archived from the original on March 8, 2001. ...for users who want to download a distribution over a 56k modem. If you travel frequently, a distribution that can reasonably be downloaded via a dial-up connection could be a blessing if disaster strikes ... We tested two compact distributions--Peanut Linux and Vector Linux... test system was a Pentium-200 with a 3GB hard disk, 64MB of RAM...
Russell C. Pavlicek (November 29, 2002). "Column: Bits and Snippets". InfoWorld. ...some current Linux distributions are too bulky for some old hardware (such as 486s and some first-generation Pentiums). What is needed here is a lighter-weight distribution, such as Peanut Linux, which can do a full install on a 486 or better with 32MB of memory and a 600MB hard drive. ...
Cynthia Harvey (May 10, 2011). "50 Top Linux Distributions". Lightweight Distros... aLinux [one of four]. Formerly known as Peanut Linux, aLinux is designed to be both fast and multimedia-friendly. Its graphic interface provides an easy transition for former Windows users.
Cynthia Harvey (January 5, 2015). "Open Source Software List: 2015 Ultimate List". ...Section: Operating Systems and Kernel Modifications [list of 89 distros]... aLinux. Formerly known as Peanut Linux, aLinux is designed to be both fast and multimedia-friendly. Its graphic interface provides an easy transition for former Windows users. ...

Besides the more-general computer/IT trade press above, there are of course some Linux-specific press-cites.

linux-specific refs

Marcel Gagné (Dec 18, 2000). "Give the Gift of Linux this Holiday Season". ...If space is a great concern, there are a few Linux distributions that take space very seriously (including some of the ones I mentioned above). Try out Peanut Linux or Pygmy Linux. Once their system is installed...

Michael Conry. "News Bytes". Linux Gazette. Archived from the original on February 19, 2013. ...Distro News [section]: ...Peanut. Moving to Peanut Linux. (link to review at NewsForge.com which is currently at https://web.archive.org/web/20030803083704/http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/03/14/1612205 giving a longer blurb, "Walter Kruse offers up his experiences with Peanut Linux. Not talked about as often as more high profile commercial distros, this flavor of Linux is fast, lightweight, and suited to both new and advanced users", which in turn links to https://web.archive.org/web/20030803034942/http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3654654073.html for the Walter Kruse review. Same review with same blurb was linked from here as well, https://web.archive.org/web/20151022081307/http://archive09.linux.com/articles/28295) ... {{cite web}}: External link in |quote= (help)

"DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking". Distrowatch. January 11, 2012. Last 12 months... #156 aLinux ...
"Directory [section] / Distributions / Desktop / aLinux". 2005-09-16. ...Earliest Compatible Linux Kernel: 2.6.29. aLinux founded in 1996 (formerly Peanut Linux) was originally based on Debian. It has since transcended into an RPM based distribution. Approved architecture(s) - AMD / Intel - aLinux is a completely Free Linux Operating System. Desktop interface is always KDE based. ...
"Feature Article: The LWN.net Linux Distribution List". ...aLinux is a Professional Linux Operating System (700MB) designed for ease of use and sports a visually stunning Graphical User Interface, while maintaining a level of sophistication that experienced linux users can appreciate. Formerly known as Peanut Linux when v12.1 was released February 23, 2005. The name was changed to aLinux and version 12.2 was released March 24, 2005. Version 12.8 was released July 31, 2006. aLinux 14.0 was released June 1, 2010. aLinux 15.0 was released February 22, 2013.
"DistroWatch: Distributions". April 29, 2004. ...Peanut Linux 9.6. A 100% pure Linux, glibc, libc6 ELF system. The entire system when installed is less than 999MB...
Joseph Colton (September 24, 2002). "Linux Guidebook". Brigham Young University–Hawaii. Linux Distributions [section] ... Red Hat is currently the most popular company that makes a Linux distribution, but there are many more. Some of the more common ones are Red Hat, Caldera, Debian, Mandrake, SuSE, Beowulf, Peanut Linux. Many of these distributions can be ... {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

There is probably sufficient depth of coverage in the Linux-specific sources to write a start-class article, but I'm not sure there is enough generic-IT trade-press coverage to pass WP:GNG. Wiki-tradition is for FLOSS projects to get a bit of a break in terms of what counts as WP:RS (see e.g. WP:NSOFT essay), but methinks that tends to be more applicable for *active* projects that the readership might actually find useful to them in real life. As a historical project, WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies of course, but it's borderline whether we have enough sources to properly write up an article about this defunct project/product.

It is possible offline sources from the late 1990s exist, if somebody has access to glossy-print-computer-magazines from that era. p.s. For the younger readership, there was this thing back in the day, called "64 megabytes of RAM" which was quite an impressive thing... you may be more familiar with "gigs" nowadays, which are vaguely related. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CNET article looks good, but the others are trivial mentions. The entire news article doesn't have to be about this topic, but we need more than a confirmation that it exists. This would include single sentence mentions, top ten lists, database entries, etc. It's useful to have an exhaustive list of every open source project that has ever existed, yes, but that's an argument to avoid. Though it's more commonly associated with fandom, Wikia is a better place for exhaustive coverage of non-notable topics. Or, like I said before, DistroWatch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mista Grimm

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mista_Grimm Globalmario (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)globalmario[reply]

Delete. Unclear if artist is notable. Regardless, there is very little information about this artist, as the only external source is through the website allmusic in which does not provide any evidence at all. There isn't any information about being charted. Furthermore, all other internal wiki links have very little information about this artist. The internal links have various claims of being charted, but do not have any sources either. Sadly, there isn't any proof. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Globalmario (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC) SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indo Smoke maybe instead of deleting, if that single is independently notable as it seems he is best known for this and News, Books and highbeam all immediately found links including from that time so he got attention but there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is nothing showing that the single is notable. Maybe I'm missing something? Please feel free to let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalmario (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Globalmario (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)globalmario[reply]
Keep. Good charting. (around 300,000 sold). Adding to the Vibe source already in the article, coverage in Darling, Cary (10 April 1994), "ALL SMOKE, NO FLAME?", The Orange County Register - Plunkett, Richard (10 December 1993), "Singles", The Age - Flick, Larry (14 January 1995), "Situation: Grimm. (sound recording reviews)", Billboard - Flick, Larry (12 June 1993), "Mista Grimm. Indo Smoke", Billboard. Includes mainstream coverage from as far away as Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the source, there are two small articles(a sentence or two) stating some information about Mista Grimm and him being a co-publisher with 3 or more people, among hundreds of other artists. I am not convinced these would establish him being notable. Furthermore, there aren't any other sources besides his connections to other Wikipedia pages. Also, I am not exactly sure what it was meant by 300,000 sold, is there a source that shows something of his was sold 300,000 times? I'm also unsure if he did anything by-himself or only material with others.Globalmario (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)globalmario[reply]

Rubbish. "stating some information about Mista Grimm and him being a co-publisher with 3 or more people, among hundreds of other artists". Nope, the two linked are single reviews. As for the 300,000. Try actually reading the source already in the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duffbeerforme as appears to meet WP:NPERSON. --Rubbish computer 11:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. Nothing on the search engines show that this artist meets WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, or WP:BIO. Citations provided by the editor above do not rise to the level of in-depth coverage necessary to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969. How do the The Orange County Register and The Age sources "not rise to the level of in-depth coverage necessary"? Have you seen them? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OceanLab

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

promo article, undisclosed COI sockfarm. Pls take to SPI. Article itself - claim is dubious - remixes done by others, so worth taking to AfD anyhow. Widefox; talk 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erkrson (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC) I reviewed article and most concerns about content are invalid. Additionally, the article references a major electronic music group and deletion would detract from the Wikipedia experience. Erkrson — Erkrson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have a connection with either the subject, or the other accounts that have edited this article? Widefox; talk 02:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: well-known in the electronic music world, charted. Vrac (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there enough secondary sources to build an article as it currently fails WP:V using (deadlink) non-WP:RS primaries (and that link is just the single per the Guinness)? Although WP:NBAND has 1 charting single, we can't write a band article based on just the height of a single - it may be better placed in the parent Above & Beyond (band) or as a notable single? It fails several of the other NBAND criteria like notable label. Widefox; talk 02:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually vote on music AFD's because I'm not sure what constitutes an RS in that world, but I remembered this group so I just verified that it meets NBAND by charting, which should be enough to keep the article. As for the COI and sock issues I haven't looked into it. You could always list it at WP:COIN if you think the problem is serious enough for admin attention. Vrac (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N is necessary but not sufficient for having an article. WP:NOTPROMO (plug for my essay at WP:BOGOF, which details this). Widefox; talk 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Had a UK Top 40 hit with 'Satellite' in 2004 (reached 19 in the UK Singles Chart!) 90.203.6.79 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Above & Beyond as the one single could keep this but it may simply be better mentioned there until a fuller article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Above & Beyond (band). This is basically a side project of that group, and the verifiable details can be included there. --Michig (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit N Shetty

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Gimmicky record is not significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article with better sourcing can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tutak

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

Overly promotional lovefest for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Prod removed without reason or improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete no independent coverage provided; brief google search shows nothing of note either. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete and draft & userfy in any case until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see sources that support notability, either as an artist or as an academic (fails WP:ARTIST and WP:PROF). If anyone can find good sources, please list them here and ping me so I can review them. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be failing WP:ARTIST & WP:PROF. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Green

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

Actor who falls under too soon-all of his roles seem to be minor as well. Wgolf (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply nothing better. Pinging user Grayfell. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yup, too soon. He had a minor named role in a movie, and was an apparently uncredited 'featured extra' in another. Other roles either haven't been released yet, or are too minor to mention. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable enough as of yet to merit an article. INeverCry 19:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes by death toll in 1901-1910

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

This is not necessary. We just went through this with another one-off list. I find that the timing on this is nothing short of incredible. The article listed below was deleted very recently (09:32, 10 October 2015‎):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of earthquakes in the 2010s by death toll - result: deleted

Anyway, these types of articles are redundant as we have lists for individual years. These lists include some details on deaths and they'll do just fine; we don't need list articles dedicated to the topic. I also find that the topic is a little less than encyclopedic.

Dawnseeker2000 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can understand wanting to see this information on a single page, but it seems to me that this is something we should try to solve via WikiData -- different views of the same information. Making them into articles doesn't make sense because it means that edits need to be done in more than one place and the articles are very likely to get out of sync. LaMona (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and be vigilant for similar incarnations. In addition to the redundancy already mentioned, this seems like stats for the sake of stats (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK), not an encyclopedic list. If people want to mine and recombine the data in Lists of earthquakes for their own private analyses or reports, let them do that on their own spreadsheets; it is not the place of Wikipedia to host arbitrary collections of data for the event that some geology student might find it convenient. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to meet the definition of WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the confusion about whether this is the right team for a redirect, I think deletion is the better option, as argued by several. Ged UK 12:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico Thunder

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

Can confirm it existed at one time but there's nothing else out there on this team (beware of other NM sports teams with the same name). PROD contested in 2006. Fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League#Former Teams so it goes somewhere. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to go anywhere. That is a cheap argument. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is confusing. The article on the Premier League doesn't even mention this team, despite its lengthy listing of current and former members. There is a reference to the Sonoran Thunder, but is this the same team? By the way, even if it is the same team, there is no article on the Sonorans, not even a re-direct. It would be best to just delete the instant article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League#Former Teams - a plausible search term, but no clear indication of WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above suggestions, possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirection per WP:REDLINK. Someone who browses Women's Premier Soccer League needs to know that there isn't an article there, and a redlink does that job. A redirect would just send someone back to that page, causing confusion and disappointment because there is no additional information about the team at that article. Since there isn't anything substantial that needs to be saved, I think this article should be straight-up deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with Tavix and think that it should just go straight to delete. Spiderone 08:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is it a former team? If so, why isn't it listed in the former teams section of the league article? Or was a franchise awarded, but no team was formed? If it played in the league, then redirect by all means. That would at least give the reader some information. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can't figure that out shows why redirecting is bad. There isn't any information that would be gained from redirecting, if anything, it would lead to disappointment and/or confusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned it's a plausible search term. Redirects are cheap. --Jimbo^[online] 14:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails verification. There is no independent source. There is no mention of them in the Albuquerque Journal, nor The Santa Fe New Mexican. It appears that the franchise never formed up, and is and always was non-existent. All "New Mexico Thunder" references are to minor or junior baseball, football or basketball teams. It would be incorrect and unhelpful to redirect this title anywhere. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to David Grant (producer). While Bejnar's rationale has merit, the fact that the film is listed in the producer's filmography is, imho, enough to warrant the redirect, rather than a straight deletion. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Perverts

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Delete for lack of any substantive coverage, much less significant coverge. Fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NFILM. This 11 minute animated film was previously up for deletion in October–November 2013, the result was no consensus. A previous suggestion was to redirect this title to David Grant (producer); however, there is no discussion of the film there, it is just listed in his filmography. The film is listed in some film directories like imdb, bfi and bcdb. It is also available for downloading and watching, copyright notwithstanding. Nonetheless, I could find no substantial coverage of it in reliable sources. There are mentions, such as in Third Way (magazine) that it received a BBFC certificate in 1976, and it is mentioned in lists of porn films and lists of censored cartoons. There are mentions like The title of the film 'Snow White And The Seven Perverts' (BR/E 37078/14/10/78), registered on 10 October 1973, has been amended to 'One Day My Prince Will Come'. There is a set of stills at Cinematrices web site] at wordpress.com. According to the note at deviantart.com (not a reliable site), it was complied with other pornographic cartoons by the publisher (Amor Films) in Erotische Zeichentrickparade, and in the 1976 film The Erotic Cartoon Festival. Episode 7 "Perversione Del Sesso" of The Bruno Mattei Show, may have had a film review by the Cinema Snob, Brad Jones; however, it is not currently available for viewing. Even if it did, the coverage remains insufficient. It is not mentioned in Karl Cohen's Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America, likely because it was not American. --Bejnar (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Redirect to David Grant (producer) as suitable enough under WP:ATD. Sure appreciate the nominator giving us a long and quite detailed deletion nomination statement which underscores the topic is sourcable in multiple books even if not meeting criteria for a separate article. A simple redirect to its filmmaker does not require that the target do anything beyond informing readers that the (notable) filmmaker is the filmmaker (but it could per sources if anyone wishes to do it), and readers can always research it themselves to find information not in Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect although there is essentially nothing actually notable about the film, and its precis is basically of little value. I am not asserting that its producer is notable however. Collect (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973. Would have voted delete/redirect, but since he is included in the target page, felt redirect was warranted. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Nelson

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

Possibly notable but WP:NOPAGE. It's worth noting that the article was recently created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. EEng (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

improper forum I guess that it depends upon how much detail one wants to include about a bunch of 1EVENT people. Putting them all into one article with the current level of detail would be a bit much. But it can be argued that much of that detail is irrelevant for the encyclopaedic purpose of listing them. We already have List of the verified oldest men and all the citations from all the articles (except any who are independently notable) could be placed there. (Aside: We also have other lists of longevitous people complied at Lists of centenarians, most, if not all, of the people listed in them are independently notable.) Because, aside from List of the verified oldest men and the template listing via {{Oldest men}}, I can find no articles linking to these men, it makes me think that EEng's WP:NOPAGE proposition might be worth considering; however, it shouldn't be done from the entry point of a single article. My conclusion is that this is not the proper forum for such a wholesale change. --Bejnar (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault, but you're behind the learning curve on this [6][7]. The NOPAGE question, for subjects which appear to be notable, do need to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending on how much material is available/desirable to include about them. EEng (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incrementalism? --Bejnar (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're asking. EEng (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) was that being the world's oldest person (female there) was not sufficient for notability for a separate article. As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), articles that are basically obituaries is essentially WP:ROUTINE coverage. In this case, (1) The Guthrian link has no specific article so I'm not sure what it's about; (2) the Miami news link is literally just a short five paragraph obituary about him dying as the oldest person; and (3) this video has a mention of Nelson in section 3 is literally a passing mention of him (and claims he was merely the oldest person in Iowa when he died) with nothing that could use be sourced to the article here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Age does not confer notability. Jbh ^Talk 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973 NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Haunted Tennessee". pp. 96–98.

[2] "Looking Beyond the Highway". pp. 123–125.

[3] "Chattanooga Mythbusters". AOL Travel News.

[4] Chattanooga: delivering the dream. p. 141. (subscription required)

[5] "Downtown hotel angers Ironman contestants with overbooking glitch". timesfreepress.com.

[6] www.nordicfilmfest.org

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]