Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Venomiss

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for now at best as the article is simply not convincingly better enough and my searches also found nothing better. Notifying tagger DESiegel in case he has any comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything that shows how this artist meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 15:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (The Delete !vote like myself couldn't find anything yet stuff has turned up so it kinda makes both are !votes Moot, Sourcing isn't amazing but meh they're not mentions so I'm happy!, Thanks Tomwsulcer) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Alexander (newsreader)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was 2-3 years I saw it but I vaguely remember it was something about them making stuff up and that they shouldn't be trusted but I can't recall where I even read it as it was a long time ago , Well I've used Metro and Hello for others so perfect thank you :), I'll withdraw in a minute, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Speedy deleted per G5' Materialscientist (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nollywood Trademark

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

As it stands, the article is a plain description about the categories this trademark is active under, but it makes no clear assertion whether the trademark or brand is notable. The only reliable sources I could come up with for this was the registrated with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Of note: there was also a brief discussion regarding this trademark on the Nollywood talk page. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boys' Brigade companies in Singapore

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Non-notable list of non-notable minor organizations. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:JamesBWatson under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 18:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adryenn Ashley

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

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

Comment Ok, so User:Materialscientist has protected this page so we shouldn't have a 4th iteration of it, unless they mess with the casing or spelling (as they often do). For future reference, Materialscientist has also added the SPAs who created, removed deletion tags and supported the article on talk pages to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TejaswaChaudhary. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Does not have in-depth coverage from reliable sources that is sufficient to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSLRA

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foothills Alliance Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Month of Photography Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture (US band)

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

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

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

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

Weak keep as per first AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now pending more information - the two musicians mentioned as "notable" in the first AFD are arguably not notable. I don't have time to assess this right now, but it would help a lot if we could point to two (or more) musicians in the group and say they clearly met WP:MUSIC and keep the article, OR if we could point to all but one of the musicians in the group and say they clearly fail to meet WP:MUSIC and delete the article (or find some other reason that the topic is notable other than "it has two notable members"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I haven't had time to research this but if this AFD closes with just the nom, my comment, and the comment above it, I recommend against a "keep" close and recommend for a close of "no consensus." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastview Community Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted A3 (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Theurer

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

Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are non-trivial sources and a consensus to keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep only if this can improved considerably, if not, simply draft and userfy until then. If more eyes are needed to look at this later, it can be nominated again. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mahmood Quadri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quran code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kojo Yankson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Shakoor Baloch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - The position of referee does not immediately confer notability. A quick Google search doesn't turn up enough information to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence is notable, both 'references' are dead links. Eldumpo (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zanjirani Farahani

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - a single trivial hit in News; nothing in Newspapers, Books, Highbeam or Scholars. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Nursery Rhymes

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:RS. Not all straight-to-video films are notable. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any reliable secondary coverage for this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reason for nomination is fuzzy, and topic is clearly notable (although I agree that the article needs work). AfD is not cleanup. Miniapolis 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist_mythology

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buddhist mythology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Of the two keep votes, only one presents some sort of argument, but that is based on the supposed notability of the award, for which I find no support in the AfD. The other keep vote presents no valid argument at all in terms of policy. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Makkar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Herbein

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

The article might pass for WP:ANYBIO since Herbein is known for his connection to the events related to the Three Mile Island accident. However, there is not enough info to pass for WP:GNG. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently no obvious general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of female action heroes

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep and cleanup – Passes WP:LISTN, because female action heroes have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. See source examples posted above by Andrew Davidson for starters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Last Week Tonight. That notability is not temporary isn't a reason for keeping, since notability is not yet established, as is clear from this AfD. Sources exist, sure, but source alone don't establish we should have an article on a given topic. If the current article is too big to merge, then trim it. No arguments are presented that evidence a breadth and depth of coverage, but since some sourcing exists, merge is a viable option. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff the Diseased Lung

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beard Meats Food

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Rayalaseema

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kochavi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete obviously self-promotion, fails GNG. The only serious coverage is a short article in a second-rate Israeli newspaper. The rest are trendy media websites. A quick googling in Hebrew revealed that his name has some 3,000 hits (including social media, forums etc.), but even that he shares with some college professor named Hanna Amit-Kochavi who seems more notable. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Meiri

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

Does not meet GNG nor WP:BIO; subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers). Subject has done nothing notable other than founding a company. Ireneshih (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as per nomination. Also note that the sources are external links to non-specific information, just general links. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, it is an obvious piece of self-promotion and needs paring down. Creative professionals in all fields do this on Wikipedia (or try), the thing is, we keep the articles if notability can be verified. Even if they are lousy articles. But this is far from the worst of the type: it actually has some usable sources. Coverage in tabloids such as ABC certainly counts towards notability. Note, however, that El Economista is not a tabloid. And legitimate Hebrew news media (TheMarker) that cover business. There does seem to be notability established by these sources and by sources including: [19] for Meiri/Orpan Group under WP:CREATIVE "# 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i.e., the attractions he and his company creates garner significant media attention. He falls more or less into the category of notable curators or set designers; see, for example, Lisa Small, George Tsypin). I have added category: museum exhibit designers to article, click on it and see that we have multiple articles about careers of this type. Also, where a creative artist and the corporation he founds are more or less synonymous, we have a single article with notability supported by articles about the artist and/or about the corporation (cf. Georg Jensen; Anne Klein) E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Weak Keep, nominator routinely nominates articles and mentions "tabloid" newspapers but either uses that as a weasel word or doesn't realize the distinction in printing between tabloid and broadsheet. Regardless, there's enough sources and claims and assertions of notability to keep this, even a bit weakly though.
Delete too many of the citations are to building that don't even mention him. This is almost a "one event person" as those articles that do mention him are predominately about Toledo. The coverage is not in-depth. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG - 5 trivial mentions on News; zip on Newspapers, Highbeam and Scholar; a single trivial hit on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No valid policy-based arguments to keep are presented. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Di-Cypher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Tajima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEng (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Pamarthy

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

PROD material which I considered but chose AfD instead for clarity, G4 (if it's ever needed) and in case familiar attention is needed, not to mention this is also borderline speedy material. Questionably notable and improvable as searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this so unless he's locally notable and significant, there's not much convincingly better. Notifying author Babji Goud and past user and tagger Sitush. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has no WP:RS because it does not have significant coverage.Pixarh (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added WP:RS to article. Cartoonist is covered in depth in multiple independent reliable sources and meets WP:NOTEBLP. Pamarthy is also a well recognized artist who has achieved national and international recognition in his field. Unfortunately, the editor who created the original article was not well-versed in Wikipedia policy. There are more reliable sources out there, and the article could use more work. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Business (yacht)

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

This is not so much an article about a yacht, but a coatrack to talk about the "Gary Hart incident", an incident involving living people which is already covered in the articles of those involved. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah, memories, memories... The deliciousness of cheeky Presidential candidate Gary Hart in a "Monkey Business Crew" t-shirt with a blonde-not-his-wife on his lap, swilling gin and tonics on the cover of the National Enquirer... I still have that cover around in my stuff somewhere... Does that make the yacht notable? Eh, maybe... Carrite (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have fairly generous standards about the notability of cruise ships, but probably not so much for purely private craft. On the other hand, here are some actual reliable sources about the boat: "Charter Yacht Has Carried Lots of Celebrities", Associated Press, May 7, 1987; "Marijuana Is Found On Yacht Hart Once Used", Philadelphia Inquirer, May 15, 1988; "'Monkey Business Yacht Goes Up For Sale", Ocala Star-Banner, January 2, 1990; a page in the travel book Oddball Florida, published by Chicago Review Press (2003). --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign. Its notability is all tied up with his self-destructive shenanigans. I'm surprised it isn't already mentioned in Hart's article. That was one well-known photo. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with redirect, of course) to Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign per Clarityfield. There is one reason, and one reason only that the yacht Monkey Business is potentially notable, and that is its role in ending the ill-fated presidential campaign of Gary Hart. But for the compromising photos of Gary Hart on Monkey Business, and the very public lies he told about such activities, Hart very well might have been the President of the United States. As it was, he was forced to drop out of the Democratic Party primaries as his support evaporated. This content is a perfect candidate for a merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found by Arxiloxos appear to push this - barely - past GNG; were this a person a BLP1E case could apply, but it isn't so it doesn't, and notability is not temporary. In 1987 the yacht became notable; therefore, per the notability guideline, it still is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: I'm not at all convinced. In each instance of coverage linked above, it is brief and it is perfectly clear the only reason the subject boat was getting any attention was because of its prior involvement with the Gary Hart scandal. Even if the subject were marginally notable as you suggest, it is best covered in the context of the 1988 Gary Hart campaign. Remember: satisfying GNG is not a guarantee of a stand-alone article, and editors may decide that a particular subject is better covered as part of a larger article. Do we really want a comprehensive article on Monkey Business which discusses its specifications, builder, ownership history, past and present uses, and advertises its present availability for charter? Is that encyclopedic? Outside of its association with Gary Hart, how is Monkey Business any different from several hundred thousand other boats registered in the state of Florida? I still think a merge (with a redirect here) is still the best option here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want a comprehensive article on Monkey Business which discusses its specifications, builder, ownership history, past and present uses, and advertises its present availability for charter? Is that encyclopedic? Aside from the last part (and IS it still around?) yes, that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to be "the repository of the sum total of human knowledge", and while we do appeal to sanity by having the GNG, once something meets the GNG, then that needs to be the end of it. Outside of its association with Gary Hart, how is Monkey Business any different from several hundred thousand other boats registered in the state of Florida? It isn't significiantly - aside from the seizure, and there should be more story there (how did it wind up returned to its owner?), but while that would be relevant if this was an article about a living person, it isn't about a living person, and therefore it isn't relevant. What is relevant is that there is enough, for whatever reason, to establish it as notable, however barely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBR, Civil forfeiture in the United States is an involved subject that is hotly contested in the U.S. federal and state courts. The fact that Monkey Business was "seized" because of the presence of a few ounces of recreational marijuana is evidence of just how out of control the U.S. forfeiture laws had become by the late 1980s and 1990s. The drug asset forfeiture laws were written to permit the government to confiscate planes, boats, and other vehicles used in narcotics trafficking, as well as the cash proceeds therefrom; there is no presumption that the government may confiscate private property that is not being used for illegal purposes. The presence of a couple ounces of pot, although illegal, was not intended to allow the seizure of 6- and 7-figure pleasure craft that were not used for smuggling. It's no surprise that the government returned Monkey Business to its owners based on the facts mentioned in the article, and that does not make the boat notable, exceptional or even particularly noteworthy. If I may quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage in reliable sources creates the presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . . ." In this case, the best and most appropriate home for the Monkey Business content is the 1988 election section of the Gary Hart article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos, and Dirtlawyer1's description of what encyclopedic information that are presented in reliable sources that we'd want in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article could be expanded like Chappaquiddick incident to the Monkey Business incident or such - of such American history is made. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG with no objection to renaming. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge, as above). - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conley family

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

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

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

Seems like quite and interesting and heavily researched family history project - but I'm not seeing any of the individuals mentioned as particularly notable nor that the family is in-and-of-itself particularly notable. So I'm going to have to put it as delete and hope that it moves somewhere more appropriate - maybe a local history museum website? JMWt (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not a suitable encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a WP:COATRACK for bios of non-notable people. Is any individual there notable enough for a standalone article? Wikipedia sometimes has family articles, but they're to tie together the articles of individually notable people. Also, 15 SPAs for this article alone indicate a big WP:COI and WP:SPA problem. John Nagle (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax? One wonders how much of this is true. Mostly real with touches of hoax, or the other way around. Include as part of this family is Vernon Baker, included here on the basis that "Baker's first wife was Helen Stewart Baker, a member of the Conley Family of Alabama" [20]. That info was put into Baker's page by SPA socks connected to this mess. Prior it said his first wife was Leola Baker. The New York Times says "his first wife, Fern"? What's true? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bonaccio

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unsourced WP:BLP whose subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing more than a few trivial mentions with News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet GNG. Good luck with your career. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community Transition Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SixtyEight Research

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:SPECULATION, and WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the sources mentioned in this article are either not reliable, only make small mentions, or do not mention the company at all and are only used for original research.--Proud User (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.Lakun.patra (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Liangming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep - Meets WP:GNG being the first ever Chinese player to sign for, arguably, one of the world's largest and most successful football clubs. Consequently, there is ample coverage on the player from some very large English media outlets that are expressing the sheer significance of his transfer.[21][22][23]. This is one Asian source discussing the player[24], but if he is getting significant coverage in Europe, I can only imagine what they are saying about him in China. --Ashkaan232 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. No longer fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 23:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Santa Ana kidnapping case

AfDs for this article:

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS. and fails WP:EVENT. 5 months after the last AfD I'm not seeing persistent coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. Also fails the various criteria WP:EVENT. If there is a conviction, then we would need to see if coverage shows "enduring notability". - Location (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see previous AfD - it has received international coverage for more than a year, and the trial to come. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * article has received international coverage indeed. still trial to come. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Monastyrsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Does not look like notable at all based on the single third party source currently used on this page [26]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A link pointing out that the subject is on the fringe of mainstream thought, like the one given by My very best wishes, does not reduce the notability of the subject, but it does show that we need to be cautious about making sure that our coverage of the subject is based on mainstream and not just fringe sources, so that we can be properly neutral. Unfortunately in this case there are not reliable sources that appear to confer much notability at all, regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe. Instead we have four footnotes to the subject's own sites, and one skeptic blog of dubious reliability. That's not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article relies heavily on primary sources. Not a single reliable source.Pixarh (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Leib

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

No independent sources; no indication of notability. —Swpb^talk 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Subject appears to be widely published in his field. Due to the legitimacy of the field (law academia), this page appears to meet the criteria for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.228 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of his books is reviewed here in the New Republic[27]; there are substantial citations of his books and papers[28]. He appears to be widely published in the top-level mainstream press (e.g. LA Times, WaPo, American Scholar) as well as from top academic publishers (Oxford.)--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
probable keep He does have a public profile. See here:[29] and here:[30] I'll be back later to take a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems notable and acceptable enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Knapp

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

No indication of notability. Principal source appears to be a family memoir. Nthep (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but probably not notable. I can't find anything which is unambiguously about this Horace Knapp. Can't see a good reason to keep, sorry. JMWt (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations from local/regional newspaper articles as well as a local history book. The family memoir was used only to fill out the description (as the oral and written traditions will be lost if not recorded). I've removed some paragraphs that were unnecessary to the core subject of how the local community was built. It is important to local communities to record their heritage before it is lost forever. I would submit that besides the published citations I have added, the oral and written traditions (from primary sources) were extremely important to local pioneer families. This is how tradition and history in small communities was recorded and passed down. You may disregard the "family memoir" portion of the article, and I believe it still stands on the published citations alone. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutgirl83 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: As I said above, it is interesting - but can you tell me what is so important about this Horace Knapp rather than anyone else around at the time? What did he do that is so interesting and worth remembering hundreds of years later? JMWt (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research; if he founded a community, he may be notable within the state but not the geographic US. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a person of no apparent public or other significance, a well-liked citizen but I'm at a loss as to why an encyclopedia or even a local history text would want to cover him. The references indicate little about the reliability or depth of their coverage. Sandstein 18:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: He seems to have found the community of Purdy, but the sources are a bit of a problem. :/ Redirect Seeing Hydronium Hydroxide's comment about Purdy's population, I rather have a brief mention about him being the founder of the community in the village's article instead. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Purdy Schoolhouse. While Knapp founded Purdy, it's relatively small (1544 people for the CDP as of the 2010 census), he doesn't meet WP:GNG, nor does he meet any of the other criteria at WP:BIO. I've edited Purdy, Washington to fold in relevant info (except for the section about the road to Gig Harbour, which I've inserted but commented out given the lack of reliable source and tone) and add a couple of sources, though it's still not in good shape. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draftspace. The article has been/will be moved to Draft:Bookit (company) (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 19:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bookit (company)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Return to draftspace as if I had reviewed this, I would not have accepted it like Timtrent as the article simply needed any more available in-depth third-party sources and my own searches now only found a few links at Books, News and browsers....certainly nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I tend not to !vote on drafts I have accepted. The article was always borderline for acceptance. Sometimes main namespace works for a borderline article, sometimes not. All it has to be is capable of being referenced to remain here. The argument that it "simply needs more references" (presumably for it to remain in main namespace) has to fail on that basis. But, if it is returned to Draft: that has to be acceptable, too. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return to draft space Premature acceptance. The refs need to be pruned to those with substnatial cotnent, and then we cna properly judge the notability . DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dobbs

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

No evidence of Notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, article was established June 2010 from news/death-announcements, PRODed 7 July 2015, opposed 8 July, simultaneously a deadlink-tagged, self-published, blog site was replaced with an online article created in August 2011, over one-year after the death, centred on the deceased's family. No evdence of significant coverage prior to death, only in motorsports events as a participant, and no article expansion since 2010, only maintenance. Included in List of Snaefell Mountain Course fatal accidents since the day of death with three hard-copy references. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NMOTORSPORT. In particular 3.Competed in a ... race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans). The Isle of Mann race meets this criteria. Support withdrawn - unable to substantiate which category of the Isle of Mann and unable to find anything more on line to support a keep NealeFamily (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isle of Man TT is essentially a series of races under one umbrella festival. Certainly someone that competed in the Senior TT would meet standard #3, but someone that merely competes in a lesser race may not. For a similar situation, a racer in the Daytona 500 would probably count, Sportsman 300 (2nd-tier race) is a bit harder to justify though could be considered as meeting, Daytona 250 (3rd-tier race) would be a stretch, and Daytona ARCA 200 (4th-tier) would likely fail. Similarly, someone in one of the two 6 lap races would probably count. This isn't even a 4 lap race, but a 3 lap race. I don't know enough about the TT to say for sure, but I don't think that meets the goal of #3 in that there is a presumption. Might be enough to meet WP:GNG anyways, but I will defer to those with greater knowledge of TT racing to make the actual decision. RonSigPi (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As there are no sources presently available to Wikipedia, from the one-year-posthumous article about the family, it seems Paul Dobbs was an enthusiastic amateur, who had an extensive entry history in Isle of Man events. The 1960s phrase referring to such amateurs and the Isle of Man was 'holiday racer'. There are still some around with a couple of bikes and a tent for a couple of weeks, but likely the phrase has fallen out of use. The IoM races are totally different to those exampled in WP:NMOTORSPORT/3, not part of a series, not with European/World level teams participating, and certainly not with any National significance. Without pre-death sources to prove notability, only race tables and news reports can be cited.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chura

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable as a single-market local television news anchor and as a not yet elected candidate in a future election. These are not claims of notability that give a person an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — but the sourcing here is leaning entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like a tweet and his surprisingly not-yet-dead profile on the website of the television station he formerly worked for. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he (a) wins his seat, or (b) manages to accrue greater notability, for more than just existing, as a journalist. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: List of Global Television Network personalities gives some indication of extent of existing coverage of similar subjects, which suggests that he may pass WP:JOURNALIST#1. The linked sources above, provided by the proposer seem to back this up. However, this is not my area of expertise. If there are clearer guidelines on TV Journo notability, then they probably need to be referred to here. The proposer highlights a few shortcomings within the article, but these can easily be addressed by more work on the article rather than deletion. Graemp (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion of television journalists is really quite simple: they are the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or his own employer. There doesn't need to be any special policy beyond that fact — but no such coverage has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A click on the Find sources link above for "Peter Chura" leads the reader to "substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or his own employer." The coverage of the subject has in fact increased significantly over the past month. This article has been in existence since 2006 and has had contributions from a number of editors. There might have been a case at some point over those past 10 years to move to have the article deleted, due to lack of substantial coverage. I think that point has now clearly passed. Graemp (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards are much stricter now than they were in 2006 — a lot of things were created in 2006 that have since had to be deleted for failing to fulfill the standards that apply today. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per a number of articles in reliable sources entirely about the subject:
- "Former TV anchor Peter Chura to run for Manitoba Liberals". CBC News. 27 October 2015.
- Larkins, David (27 October 2015). "Peter Chura running for Liberals in Seine River". Winnipeg Sun.
- Keele, Jeff (27 October 2015). "Ex-anchor Peter Chura running for Manitoba Liberals". CTV News.
- "Former news anchor Peter Chura running for Liberals in Seine River". Winnipeg Free Press. 27 October 2015.
- Aumell, Christian (27 October 2015). "Peter Chura Running For Liberals In Seine River". CJOB.
The fact that he got so much coverage for his decision to run suggests he is notable. Also, he has been an important public figure in his large city for ~10 years as a news anchor. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't think that he is sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist. Criterion 1 of WP:JOURNALIST, as cited by Graemp, is: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He certainly doesn't meet the latter part of that and I would struggle to call him an "important figure" in his capacity as a regional news anchor (of a newscast which I suspect has a much smaller audience than the regional newscasts of CBC or CTV). With respect to the List of Global Television Network personalities that Graemp also mentioned, the only two non-national hosts/anchors listed other than Chura are the anchors of Global BC (in Vancouver) and Global Montreal, both in markets much bigger than Winnipeg.

Regarding his recent entry into politics, provincial candidates are not normally presumed to be notable. The only coverage appears to be the mere announcement of his candidacy and all of the sources cited (in the article and this AfD) are from the same day. While the announcement got a little more coverage than the average provincial candidacy on account of him presumably being a known name in Winnipeg, it is still just coverage of the one announcement. If that's essentially all the coverage, that's coming close to WP:ONEEVENT and thus might be more appropriately covered by an article similar to Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election.

Of course, as Bearcat noted, this may be an appropriate subject for an article in the future if the subject were to become notable (by, e.g, winning the election, becoming a uniquely notable candidate for some reason, moving up in his field as a journalist, receiving a significant award or distinction for his journalism, etc.). Graham (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing if someone is "an important figure" or not can be tricky and Graham tackles this difficult area; Graham talks about audience size, speculating that Global TV audiences may be "much smaller" than CBC or CTV, without actually providing any stats. Perhaps audience size might be relevant if we were comparing a national TV company with a small local or alternative media outlet, but we are not. Graham also talks about differences in markets between Winnipeg and Montreal/Vancouver. I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is or should be. I think what is more relevant is the actual status; Winnipeg, like Montreal and Vancouver, is a provincial capital and like the other two, seeks to serve a province wide audience. This Afd discussion has also overlooked another consideration and that is Chura has not just had a Manitoba profile; the article reveals he has also had a profile in Edmonton, Alberta, Timmins, Ontario and Ottawa, Ontario and finally has worked for CBC on a national daily programme from Toronto. So that is three provinces and a nationwide show. Graham's initial view about "sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist." is no longer a relevant consideration by itself due to his further notability beyond journalism. I think it would be fairer to say that Chura's candidacy announcement got substantially more coverage than the average candidacy, provincial, federal or otherwise. Graemp (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way a candidacy for office can ever contribute to a person's notability is if it (inter-)nationalizes into something on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell in 2010. Unless and until that happens, coverage of the candidacy itself is WP:ROUTINE, because it isn't substantively different from what all candidates for office always get in the runup to all elections. So no, the candidacy coverage doesn't make him more notable on that basis than any other unelected candidate would be — until such time as he wins the election and thereby holds a notable office, the only way to make him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article now is to source the article to coverage of him in the context of being a journalist (and no, mentions of his past career as a journalist in articles which are about the candidacy don't satisfy that.) Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right for you to say that "Graham's initial view about 'sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist.' is no longer a relevant consideration by itself due to his further notability beyond journalism." when I was clearly addressing the subject's notability as a journalist and as a politician in separate paragraphs.

"Perhaps audience size might be relevant if we were comparing a national TV company with a small local or alternative media outlet, but we are not. Graham also talks about differences in markets between Winnipeg and Montreal/Vancouver. I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is or should be. I think what is more relevant is the actual status; Winnipeg, like Montreal and Vancouver, is a provincial capital and like the other two, seeks to serve a province wide audience." Where is it that you are suggesting the line is there? If a former news anchor on CKND-DT is notable, then could/should we say the same of an anchor on CBCT-DT in Charlottetown, PEI (another provincial capital), assuming the anchor were not otherwise notable? Or what about CKX-TV in Brandon, Manitoba?

In terms of audience numbers, these are a few years out of date, but it gives us an idea: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/TV/ctv-still-dominates-local-tv-news-ratings-113339259.html. That being said, ratings definitely aren't the crux of the issue here.

Regarding your comparison to Global BC and Global Montreal, Global Winnipeg serves 91% of Manitoba's population of 1.2 million. Global BC, for example, serves 97% of BC's population of 4.4 million. I would say it's a significant difference when Global Winnipeg has a quarter of the potential reach of Global BC. And if you look at the numbers for Global Montreal, they're similar.

But really, in short – and I think this is key here – the question that has to be asked with respect to Chura's work as a journalist is "has [he] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I think the answer clear.

Looking separately at his political work, the reality is that at this point, it's almost non-existent. While it seems most of the major media outlets in Southern Manitoba ran a short piece on the announcement of his candidacy, that one day of non-extensive coverage is the extent of his political career thus far. I don't know in what other field we would consider one day of non-extensive coverage of a WP:SINGLEEVENT in the regional media as sufficient to deem the individual involved in the event to be notable.

I imagine that one could attempt to make the argument that while he is not sufficiently notable solely as a journalist or as a politician, the combination of his notability in both of those fields might be enough. I don't buy that, however, as there's effectively no significant coverage of his journalism in reliable sources and his notability in politics doesn't extend beyond one day of non-extensive news coverage in the regional press.

Finally, I think it is worth restating that this someone who, if elected, will be almost unquestionably notable. If he receives extensive (preferably national) coverage for his campaign, he will likely be notable as well. But as things stand right now, he is a regional news anchor about whom there is no significant coverage and a provincial third party candidate who independent sources haven't covered except to say that he is running. Graham (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat states "the only way to make him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article now is to source the article to coverage of him in the context of being a journalist" adding "(and no, mentions of his past career as a journalist in articles which are about the candidacy don't satisfy that.)". Earlier Bearcat stated that Wikipedia:RS requires sourcing that are independent of the subject or his own employer. I don't think that the bracketed qualification that Bearcat requests should override Wikipedia:RS. Nevertheless I appreciate that Bearcat, the proposer of deletion is now recognising sufficient notability for the article to remain, so I would be happy to collaborate with Bearcat to improve it. Given that Bearcat has a history of editing this article in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010, I am happy to let Bearcat take first crack. Graemp (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but nothing I said anywhere in this discussion suggests that I think there is "sufficient notability for the article to remain". For the article to remain, reliable sources would have to be covering him in the context of his work as a journalist, and not in the context of his candidacy for an office that he hasn't been elected to yet. But the sourcing that's been shown here has not satisfied that condition at all — and I've said nothing that contradicts any part of that statement anywhere in this discussion. And Wikipedia's inclusion and minimum sourcing standards have changed considerably since 2006 — a lot of things that were acceptable on here a decade ago are nowhere near acceptable under the standards that an article has to meet now. So the fact that I might have edited the article in the past does not prove that I'm being inconsistent — it just proves that Wikipedia's rules about what's enough notability/sourcing and what isn't have changed. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here; Assessing an individuals notability and assessing the way the article presents this through sourcing. In assessing notability we rely upon WP:JOURNALIST which states "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." In assessing how this is presented we need to take note of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Bearcat proposed deletion essentially because identifying reliable sources had not occurred. I think it is fairly clear that the information in the article can be sourced in accordance with Wikipedia:RS. (The sources at the start of this AfD discussion are helpful in this respect) On the subject of notability, I think it is worth stressing that the criteria for journalists has essentially not changed since before 2008. The fact that Bearcat has edited the article three times since then should not lead anyone to conclude that Bearcat is being inconsistent since Bearcat has essentially not been questioning the notability of the subject. In my view, the way forward is to provide reliable sourcing for the article, not to deleted it. Graemp (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing that has been offered so far, right across the board without a single exception, is WP:ROUTINE coverage of an as yet unelected candidacy for political office — which is no different from what all candidates for office always get in all elections, and thus does not contribute toward getting a candidate over WP:GNG for being a candidate. It is not coverage of him in the context of his journalism, and thus does not demonstrate that he is "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" as a journalist.

And our inclusion criteria have changed considerably since 2006; back then, people often created articles on journalists whose only source was their staff profile on the website of the television station that they worked for (which was exactly the case here as well, until you started trying to stack it with WP:ROUTINE coverage of his political candidacy instead of finding actual coverage of his journalism.) There was once a time when verification of existence was considered sufficient, and an article did not have to be particularly well-sourced as long as the staff profile verified the content. But what constitutes reliable and independent sourcing for any article has tightened up considerably in the intervening decade — a staff profile is now deprecated as a primary source which cannot confer notability in and of itself.

And for the record, I've even supported the deletion of articles where I was actually the original creator under the old 2006-vintage rules (see, frex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burrows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Lanken), because the available volume of WP:RS coverage hadn't kept up with that evolution — so the fact that I may have edited an article for purely maintenance issues once or twice before does not prove that I'm being hypocritical or inconsistent by looking at it today, in mind of the notability and sourcing standards that govern Wikipedia's content today, and coming to the conclusion that it's just not there. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two journalistic awards he received have now been sourced. Sourcing of his journalistic career now covers a span of eight years. Graemp (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. No consensus to delete, but consensus to not keep (in this state), so. Sandstein 18:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leithrow

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

Subject is not inherently notable and does not pass GNG. Notability is reliant on one 'award'. Article would be best redirected to the page for that award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion isfutile:P (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ANYBIO as winner of a major award. More information being added, and additional info from the National Archive is in the pipeline. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Delete as I simply found no better coverage and basically the award is the only lifeline for this article. Notifying users DGG, MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard for some better insight as they request to be notified at low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The award is given to multiple people a year, and in repeated discussions here has been held not sufficient for notability . But possibly additional information will be forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment~~How come when I click on isfutile:P the one who nominated this AfD, I get redirected to Tonyinman?~~ My mistake confusing something else I read, oops! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (with the history preserved under the redirect and without prejudice to anyone undoing the redirect if more information establishing notability has been added). There is not enough coverage of the subject to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Rich Farmbrough wrote, "More information being added, and additional info from the National Archive is in the pipeline." A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow Rich Farmbrough to undo the redirect once more information is available and can be added. Preserving the history under the redirect will also allow Rich Farmbrough or any other interested editors to merge material to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. I note that the AfD nominator also supports a redirect.
Cunard (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Cunard. This will give Rich Farmbrough more time. Once an article hits AfD, it just becomes a huge ticking bomb! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dunsby

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

Subject is not inherently notable and does not pass GNG. Notability is reliant on one 'award'. Article would be best redirected to the page for that award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion isfutile:P (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only recognized for one event that he organized, which won an award, thus not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He didn't win the most important enterprise award in the country for organising the Harrogate Christmas market - important thought that is! It was for forty years of work building enterprise in the region. Meets WP:ANYBIO for the award, and WP:GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Note adding material from the National Archives. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  - Done R.F. 2015-12-2Z17:17

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy at best as the current sourcing is simply not convincing enough and although I found more at Books and News for starters, it would at best be better for him to be mentioned at the Yorkshire Business Market's article, not independently notable for a separate article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide the additional sources you found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note additional documents received under FOI, so may well be yet more RS to add. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It has been significantly improved. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs look ok now. I considered voting delete when this was first put up for afd, but decided to sit on the fence. As mentioned the article has been much improved. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mamamoo. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yong-Sun (singer)

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

Not notable independently, article is mostly about her work with Mamamoo which is redundant considering it is all mentioned within Mamamoo's article. Asdklf; (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mamamoo as she's seemingly best known for that, with no obvious solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no independent notability.Peachywink (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Platform

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

Non-notable political alliance. Recently created, has no parliamentary representatives and is almost anonymous; yesterday their representants appeared for first time in a TV talk-show. XXN, 23:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps too new for a solid article yet unless convincingly better coverage can be found. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite some coverage of some basic facts, I see consensus that the subject is not notable: the arguments by DGG and Carrite are strong. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arivale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom and DGG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little more than run of the mill coverage of a new startup company. Nobody doubts that the Seattle Times is a fine newspaper, only whether a blurb they run about a startup gaining financing is sufficient to pass either GNG or the Special Guidelines for Corporations. Not sufficient, in my view. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion appears on its face persuasive, but if I close this as "no consensus" we'll have one more BLP article that cites zero reliable sources, because apparently nobody could be bothered to actually edit the article to reflect these sources during the month this has been on AfD. So: Deleted for now, can be recreated if anybody bothers to write a half-way decent, sourced article. Sandstein 18:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Sethna

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

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

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

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

Delete - Not notable at this time and certainly unacceptable current version. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Carson

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

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

Keep We keep articles on people with far less coverage and who don't have 4 books and a 5th about to be released. Which Carson do you think wrote the books - the one doing brain surgery and flying around giving speaches or the double Yale major with the MBA back in the home office? As for coverage start with [31] [32] [33] [34] [35][36][37][38][39] [40] and if you want to know more I suggest buying her 5th book [41] because one of her books spend weeks on the best seller list. She passes just on WP:AUTHOR "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work..." and based on the multiple profiles published on her going back for years. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reader's Vote [42] 52,700 some readers in the last 30 days say Candy Carson deserves a BLP. For a new article with few links to get close to the 60,000 reads at the current first lady is impressive [43] Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note That Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses of politicians (categorized by state) Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed. The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything. He or she just has to be profiled in major media, (think Todd Palin). WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc. It does not matter what a subject is notable for. We are only here to judge whether sources that support notability exist. In Candy Carson's case, they do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Empire War-Z

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TG179 (if TG can't find anything, there's not much point me looking - but I did anyway). Not a deletion reason, but I was rather unimpressed by the home website, which could do with a bit of proof reading. It tells you virtually nothing about the game, which might be part of the reason for this article being created. Peridon (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Ashura

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

A POV and OR essay. No Reliable sources support this. The "ashura" is a mourning, it is like a festival. The only timeline it has is of three days, every year, and different people do different things on these three days, therefore it is impossible to create an all inclusive article. the creator most likely confused Ashura with Battle of Karbala and then went on to create a POV essay with his own cherry picked OR. I am proposing deletion with the cavet that a merge with Second Fitna may also be an option (Ty HyperGaruda) . Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge to Timeline of the Second Fitna or Second Fitna respectively. According to the Ashura article, Ashura is a ten-day festival and definitely not this multiple month-spanning series of events in 60/61 AH. Since the Battle of Karbala is only 1 day, the Second Fitna seems like a better merge target. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, I have edited my nomination to reflect merge into Second Fitna. Regrads FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashura and Battle of Karbala was chain of events that started from 15 Rajab 60 AH. Yes, Ashura is one day that Husayn ibn Ali killed but this event has background in a few months ago. The article narrated chain of event as title "Timeline of Ashura". I think that Timeline of Muharram is better tittle of the article. There are several sources that wrote about events that happen before and after of Ashura, for example: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, Husayn ibn Ali and Ashura and events that happen before and after are WP:N. This article collect all this topics in one article. Saff V. (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these four sources are the ones you have, I should nominate this for a speedy deletion. 1, 2, 3, are ALL non reliable websites which cannot be used in wikipedia articles. And the fourth source (coincidentally sitting in my personal library) does not discuss any timeline for ashura, I have read that book cover to cover and have not seen any "Timeline for Ashura" mentioned in it. Perhaps you will be kind enough to enlighten me by linking/quoting the exact lines/page from the book where the timeline has been mentioned. I may have overlooked it. Otherwise I may think that you are misrepresenting sources. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The al-Islam website is an electronic library that consist of many books. Books have writer and publisher. You can not say this site is non reliable website. When and where Wikipedia say the al-Islam website is non reliable website? Your problem is that search Timeline word in the source while The events of Ashura was a chain of events and you must read the source completely. Please read the text of the book instead of book cover. Search about the events that happened in Muharram 61 AH nit search about Timeline word.Saff V. (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then please link which books found in the al-islam library mention this. Name the books, their writers and publishers. Also "cover to cover" means that I read the entire book, not just the covers lol. English not your first language eh? don't worry, same here. Anyway, you admit now that the term "timeline of Ashura" is not mentioned in the book? good. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can find many of these books in other website such as this one. Another sources as well as have writer and publication name such as 2 and 3. The last book, also there is in Google book. Please search and evaluate the references carefully. If you have problem with title you can change it and redirect another title. Delete is not good way for solving the problem.Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, but unknown nobodys like Ramzan Ali and Ali Hussain Jalali who write self published books are not reliable sources. Therefore they should not be used in wikipedia articles. The third book is also self published by Lulu.com, and is therefore unreliable. So you see, you still have been unable to find any Reliable source to back your claim. To be frank the article is destined to be deleted, not a SINGLE source has been found yet that mentions "Timeline of Ashura". So my honest advice is that you stop using strawman tactics and use your energy somewhere else on wikipedia. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V. is correct in saying that the al-islam.org website is an online library. It is always best to cite the book (including page numbers). That a book is in the al-islam.org website does not make the book a reliable source. If the book is only available on the al-islam.org website, that is fairly good evidence that it is an unreliable source. How reliable the transcription of books is on the al-islam.org website is hard to know - i.e. do they cherry pick, or censor out bits they do not like.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book show chain of events that happened in the Karbala.Saff V. (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V. the book does nothing of that sort. It mentions the conflict just as all other sources, no timeline appears to have been given. Can you give the exact page number where the timeline/chain is given? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: I said: show chain of events that happened and did not say has chain word. Why you search chain or timeline in the source? If you have issues with title you can make redirect. Read Stand-alone list articles policy.Saff V. (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep; no point merging into another article because the citations are unreliable. This article is on a notable topic - the Karbala campaign, which has received significant coverage in many reliable sources (as well as many works of fiction, which not everybody realises are works of fiction). The article could be improved by using Western dates, and by having more and better sources. I would have given it a non-religious title - but that could be fixed by having a redirect to the current name, and amending the first line of the article to reflect two article names.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious problem with sourcing and POV. Not only are some sources unreliable, but some do not substantiate the facts claimed for them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Second Fitna Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Stand-alone list articles policy, a timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. The timeline of Ashura article listed sequence of events that happened before and after Ashura. @Sa.vakilian:, what is your idea? Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the title, but the topic seems to be one which is useful to someone, providing there are good quality secondary sources to refer to. If those don't really exist, I can't help thinking that this is then a form of WP:OR and the page should wait until someone writes a researched book including the topic to refer to. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is basically an awkward table of information found at Battle of Karbala and Day of Ashura.--Zoupan 07:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chahun Main Ya Naa

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

The song fails WP:NSONG. All the content from background section is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per SK1 - Technically my rationale is now incorrect as someone did find something so thus the delete !vote is pretty much moot, Not sure why I never found any but thanks JMWt for finding some. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 11:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Reverb

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy (Brazil) covers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep – Serves as a functional WP:SUBARTICLE of Playboy (Brazil), as evidenced by the substantial page views it receives (1,331 in October 2015). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirjana Puhar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Hi Hai Aashiqui

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

Fails WP:NSONG for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Also fail NSONGS as "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The signed letter of Muhammad al-Mahdi (Tawqee)

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

There appear to be only 5 or 6 mentions of this in the entire Shi'ite literature. And those too are only passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. I am nominating this with the premise that we put a brief mention of this (no more than 3/4 lines) somewhere in the Muhammad-Al-Mahdi article and delete this POV and OR essay. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One article consist several part and all these parts are for clearing the subject. Therefore, we can not just write about subject and this is necessary write some introduction. In this article, history section is introduction and another parts are main text. Tawqee is signature of Caliph or rulers on the letter and the article is about Muhammad al-Mahdi's Tawqee. In references of the article, the letters were introduced that Muhammad al-Mahdi signed (for example this one and this). Please pay attention that according to WP:N, popularity is not notability. You can ask your question about Muhammad al-Mahdi and related topics to him from Sa.vakilian. Saff V. (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your sources give one line mentions to this so called Highly important topic. I mean that literally, one line and they are done. It kinda made me laugh, that someone mentions something in one line and we create an article on wikipedia about that thing. Sounds absurd to you too when put this way right? Be kind enough to provide RS that discuss this in depth. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you better search you can find better and reliable source. These are reliable sources:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional sources from Saff.V - admins should note nominator appears to be targeting articles created by Saff.V that passed AfC —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: just out of curiosity, how do you know that this article passed AfC? - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And out of even more curiosity why are you going around commenting on the editor instead of content? Is the creator of this article "sacred" to you somehow or related to you that when someone nominates her/his articles for deletion you want admins to "take notice"? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirjana Puhar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreh Maru

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

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

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

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

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

Alts:

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

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

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

Delete until film is released and gets better coverage. The director is sourcable,[44][45][46] and the film is barely so. If gaining suiable coverage after release, the article can be resurrected.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON.Pixarh (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ché Ahn

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grid connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Good topic, shocking stub but not a deletable sub-stub. Needs work, yes. Andrewa (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I don't find any of the nom's arguments convincing, and, while it could use some work, see no grounds for deletion. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Draga

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Your Argument

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep are presented. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Greef

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

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

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

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

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

Comment The subject of the article was apparently for most of his life a music teacher and organist in Moers, not the kind of thing that usually makes people notable. He seems to have quite an impressive memorial fountain in the town part at Moers, but that seems to be because he founded the local male-voice choir. However, one of the sources that User:LaMona has added to the article has quite a claim of significance - he was the first person to publish Die Wacht am Rhein with its present tune. The reason for this seems to have been that, apart from the day job and a bit of related music composition, he was also quite a prolific compiler of songbooks for choirs, and the composer of the music lived in Krefeld, only a few miles from Moers. Apart from this, Greef was the brother-in-law of and occasional collaborator with Ludwig Erk.[47][48] - both seem to have had something of a reputation for their songbooks in 19th century Germany, but (at least in Greef's case), it seems to have faded since. PWilkinson (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there's simply no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Zedd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Cities Mall

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

Mid-Cities Mall has been demolished. Source[49] is a random blog. Source[50] announces that Mid-Cities must be demolished. Source[51] announces that Mid-Cities has been demolished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete All. 3 insignificant malls. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Newcastle upon Tyne#Media. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newcastle upon Tyne publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newcastle upon Tyne § Media. It's a short list, to it won't overwhelm the merge target. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumedh Mudgalkar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Sam Sailor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onset Computer Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - created by single-purpose account and retains promotional tone. I can't find any in-depth coverage in secondary sources - not notable. Run of the mill article spam. Citobun (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article with trivial references. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jim Bianco. joe decker ^talk 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Within Reason

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

I can't find evidence that this album is independently notable to pass WP:NALBUMS. Suggest a redirect and merger of content to Jim Bianco. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The right thing to do as I cannot find reliable sources that cover it in depth, nor can I find it charting. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim Bianco. Fails WP:NALBUMS, and notability is not inherited. sst✈^(discuss) 03:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of magazines in Pakistan#Urdu magazines for children. And merge to the extent supported by consensus. Sandstein 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu magazines for children

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

Duplicate of List of magazines in Pakistan#Urdu magazines for children kashmiri ^TALK 00:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this is presenting valuable information but the main list isn't long enough to need splitting. Siuenti (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with no prejudice against a resplit if and when needed. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplicate. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any notable Urdu magazines outside of Pakistan? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23 entries in Category:Urdu-language magazines. But we don't need to listify this small category in genre and also country. Hence suggested delete than redirect to Pakistan's list. Even if there are no notable children+urdu+magazines outside Pakistan, its a quite generic term to redirect to a specific country. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unnecessary to have this as a separate page, when its contents are so sparse. Recreating it, if and when it becomes necessary, is quite simple. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive Technology

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

I don't see notability here. Of the three refs , two relate to an acquisition by one company of another, and the other is an advertisement for its products. Not notability as required by WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing here currently at all to fully convince better notability and improvement for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]