Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 September	19 September >

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olushola Ogunniyi

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. He is just doing his job. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails WP:GNG by a mile. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 01:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass WP:BIO. No significant coverage (if any at all) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Several sources are provided but they don't even mention the subject (many are Wikipedia articles), plus some of the internal links inexplicably advertise companies, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Dontreader (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:gng. Only one reference, and he isn't mentioned. Looks more like a CV. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 07:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Jones

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

Apart from accusing Charlie Sheen of paying for sex with her, this person is entirely non-notable. Even if we consider that event to be worthy of note on itself, this still feels ONEEVENTlike. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - her career, drug abuse, and death were also well covered. [3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Some coverage but my sweeps of major media did not find much; sources in article currently somewhat marginal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep as per others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Sources are by no means perfect but notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is both divided and shallow. Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the greatest example of a notable person, but "significant" coverage in reliable sources is always subjective, so I don't see how the article can be deleted. The coverage in the newspaper The Age is huge, as pointed above [5]. Also, after her death, she was the subject of an episode of a TV show called A Current Affair entitled "The sudden death of adult film star Chloe Jones" [6] confirmed by UPI [7]. In fact, that UPI source might be useful for the article. Plus the articles purely related to the Charlie Sheen scandal. Dontreader (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely non-notable, this is an encyclopedia not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If she's "entirely non-notable" then why was she featured in the newspaper The Age and on an episode of A Current Affair? Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide but the subject seems to pass WP:GNG. I quote:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

And keep in mind that many articles that were written about her in reliable sources are now surely dead links. I found several cases while doing the AfD research. Dontreader (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Given the thoroughly whitewashed, deliberately misleading caliber of the AVN story, it's hard to say Jones was "well-covered" by industry sources. And that's reflected in the article, which attributes her death to "liver failure[3] caused by Vicodin use", although the cited source actually says "liver failure inflicted by an addiction to Vicodin and a lifetime of heavy drug and alcohol abuse". An accurate bio would be horrific and serve to do little beyond inflict pain on her family and her children. The sanitized piece of shit that we've let masquerade as her biography is worse than nothing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dontreader's rationale. Nymf (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found and the deletion rationales "The sanitized piece of shit" and "encyclopedia not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide" are hardly guidelines and which portray a hint of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are hardly convincing. GuzzyG (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahu Lizorkin

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

This scholar does not seem to pass WP:SCHOLAR based on what is written in the article. Also, the article has no independent reliable sources. Instead, it looks very much like the information on this page, which is the place where he works. I performed Google searches for significant coverage in reliable sources but I was unsuccessful, so I don't think the article passes WP:BIO either. Even if we could find reliable sources to support all of the claims that are made in the article, I think it would still fail to pass WP:SCHOLAR and WP:BIO. Dontreader (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing good with this perhaps being the best link I found. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, and that link seems to be to an article, not a book, so there's no evidence that the subject's work has ever been cited in a book. Dontreader (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all notable. I'm surprised it's lasted here so long. St Anselm (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He looks like a significant figure in Jewish-Christian relations. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable. The books are really his dissertations and some self-published kindle works. He is a young entry into the field who has not done anything except for several part-time jobs.--Jayrav (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kicad StepUp

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

There's a {{notability}} tag on the article; let's settle this once and for all. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I didn't see anything particularly notable about the company, or any references supporting notability. ubiquity (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ubiquity. No references supporting notability. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 07:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is unfortunately no better coverage and the best I seemed to have found was this. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists, Romantics, Communists, Napoleon, and Possibly Moby Dick

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

Article about a school play. I am unable to find any sources to support WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 20:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable college-theatre play. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above. Play produced by a college that failed to achieve wide notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If "Theatrical Plays" were listed as an article subject that could be tagged for A7, this article would easily qualify. I found no sources to establish notability for this play, and the article content clearly shows that it's simply a play that was performed at one university. Definitely not notable for an article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing good with this maybe being the best links I found. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also cannot find anything to show that this play is notable. If there were some coverage out there I might have supported a merge to the series' page, but this play seems to have solidly flown under the radar, given that it was only performed four times at one college. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This could probably be WP:SNOW closed at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej Pechkurov

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Sources are entirely blogs or wikis. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete Blogger wrote advert for his blog. 92.25.131.125 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. No secondary independent sources seem to exist to establish notability of this person. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely an advertisement, also has no notability Nz101^Userpage_Talkpage 05:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from Burnout Revenge and Burnout Legends

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

It's just a list of songs from two racing games. Not notable in any way and WP:VGSCOPE is against stuff like this. The1337gamer (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge to Burnout Revenge. Nothing notable enough here for its own article. Hasn't won any awards and the one independent source from Gamespot is simply an announcement. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Me5000 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge. #14 of WP:VGSCOPE says no track listings. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. !vote changed. Me5000 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Doesn't need its own article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I would note (my vague memory tells me there were sources) that if any specific songs were highlighted by reviews of the games, that can be documented in the main articles for these games. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VGSCOPE and possibly WP:LISTCRUFT. --TL22 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Burnoutinate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. There isn't enough secondary source coverage on this topic to justify a dedicated article. – czar 05:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Fails WP:Stand alone lists. --Bejnar (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Consulate General, San Francisco

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. all this article does is confirm the consulate exists. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a consulate general is not something that would be inherently notable, and there are no sources to say anything about it - it exists, so what Kraxler (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable on its own and Wikipedia is not a map service as to location, either. Kierzek (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable simply for being. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 18:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or preferably redirect to List of diplomatic missions in San Francisco in case a better article can ever be made as my searches found nothing better than Books and browser links. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lear Bunda

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

Does not meet gng or any other notability guideline. The two reliable sources copy on him consists of only his name. All other sources are primary, not reliable or both. Being nominated in the Melbourne, Florida film fest wouldn't buy a film notability, much less its producer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches simply found nothing better aside from results at News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 18:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at the present time to warrant a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AWImusic

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. All google results appear to be self-published or relate to an american company with the same name. Bazj (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N, verified after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaby-muller

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

There is no indication that this product is notable. The only reference is the company's own product description. Gronk Oz (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there obviously seems to be not good coverage and my searches found nothing better than a Chinese press release. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant business promotion, IMO. Quis separabit? 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like an open-and-shut case to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Because of baseball, apparently. Sandstein 11:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph L. Price

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

Fails WP:PROF - sources are trivial and not independent, there is no evidence of a significant body of work, about all we can say from the reliable independent sources is that this is a man who teaches at a minor college and seems to be a nice chap. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, he holds a named chair and Whittier arguably meets the second prong of selective institution for WP:PROF 5. Second, his book on Tillich and his book "From Season to Season: Sports as American Religion" both seem to be highly cited. I expect his other work is as well. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that anyone would call Whittier, a self described liberal arts college, a major institution of higher education and research. --Bejnar (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except perhaps for readers of WP:NACADEMICS which says "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." Whittier has a reputation for excellence... except perhaps for its law school.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel J. Howard: Using an objective measure of "excellence", in 2015 Forbes rates Whitter College as #331 Overall, #240 in Private Colleges, and #64 in the West. Forbes rated 650 colleges and universities, #331 places Whitter below 50%, near the top of the bottom half. That does not sound like the kind of excellence the guideline is talking about. That is down from #215 in 2010 here. Excellent schools include Pomona College, a direct competitor with Whitter, at #1. See the top one hundred here. That does not mean that one cannot get a good education at Whitter College, it just means that it does not meet the bright-line rule of WP:NACADEMICS. --Bejnar (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US News and World Report on the other hand, says "[Whittier] is selective..."[8]. They rank the school as 124 among National Liberal Arts Colleges. Washington Monthly ranks Whittier at 74.[9] Both rankings substantially better than Forbes's rankings. Given the subjectivity of college rankings, one can hardly call any use of them a bright-line test. From Peterson's guide to colleges we read:"Whittier has earned a reputation for providing a high-quality liberal arts education. The Princeton Review recently named Whittier as one of the country's best institutions for undergraduate education, and it included Whittier in the 2015 edition of 'The Best 379 Colleges.' Whittier is also among 200 schools listed in "Colleges of Distinction," a national college guidebook that showcases colleges who have engaged students, great teaching, a vibrant community, and successful outcomes."[10]. Finally, ironically, this list of "overrated" colleges testifies to the fact that Whittier has an excellent reputation[11], a necessary condition of being overrated.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

124 among National Liberal Arts Colleges is again in the lower 50%. And maybe you are unclear as to what "overrated" means. You do not have to have a good reputation to be overrated. It just means that you are not as good as you are being rated, which in this case is not that good even at #74 in the Washington Monthly. Whitter College is just not a major institution of higher education and research. --Bejnar (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his claim to fame is that he has appeared on television and been a guest speaker on NPR. That does not indicate that he has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity. He does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NACADEMICS. And, no, Whittier College is not a major institution of higher education and research, it is a small liberal arts college with a total enrollment of about 2,000. He lacks the kind of coverage that would support a "substantial impact" analysis. --Bejnar (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Setting aside whether this subject meets the SNG for Academics, or whether Whittier is big or little, this strikes me as a GNG pass for a recognized national expert in "Baseball Studies." HERE is an interview with Price, the Co-Director of Whittier's Institute of Baseball Studies, on MLB.com, the website of professional baseball. And HERE is the website of the University of Chicago on Price and his quest to sing the national anthem at every MLB park. And THIS from the website of the AARP, on the same topic. THIS is Price being cited as an expert by Time magazine back in 2007. HERE we have the official website of Minor League Baseball on Price's singing the national anthem 100 times in a summer. And so on and so forth. It's a simple GNG pass here; don't overthink this. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. This is one where we should inhibit our impulses to judge why someone is notable. He's getting prominent coverage for his particular interests in baseball -- that does it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter what we may think about his reasons for notability, there is ample coverage here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirco Martins

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

Don't believe this person is notable. A number of sources are unreliable, including blogs and his own webpage. The CNN "report" clearly states Not verified by CNN making it unreliable Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To clarify what the nominator is saying - that source is a CNN iReport. This is their foray into citizen journalism. The idea is that if CNN can verify what the iReport says, it is uploaded onto the main CNN website. This iReport hasn't been uploaded. Furthermore, the user who wrote it has only written this one report. This is definitely an unreliable source. I also found that something was cited to a page on the BP website that doesn't mention the subject so I removed that from the article. Yaris678 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found nothing good with this and this being the best links I found. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person just isn't really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychological Science

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article dePRODded because the journal is published by Springer. However, WP:NOTINHERITED applies and even Springer starts the occasional dud (see Research on Language and Computation for an example of a journal that failed after only 7 years - even though that one gained notability through a Scopus listing). At this point, there's no way of knowing whether this journal will make it and become notable or not. Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NJOURNALS. Might be notable in the future, but as of now WP:TOOSOON applies. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but draft and userfy if needed as there's simply no better sourcing to improve. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and per Headbomb. Wikipedia is not a directory of journals. WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of libvirt feature policies

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

This article appears to cover Linux CPU flags and has very little to do with libvirt (I am a libvirt developer). There are plenty of good resources on the internet already about Linux CPU flags (eg [12]). Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment — The nominator says that the article covers Linux CPU flags, but those flags are well known hardware instruction sets for x86 microprocessors, and aren't related to GNU/Linux, or any particular operating systems. Thus that part of the nomination could be misleading. As a side note, I was expecting a former Red Hat's employee like Richard W.M. Jones to be better educated on basic concepts of computer science — or GNU/Linux and procfs. Toffanin (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange and unnecessary ad hominem attack. Some of these -- like 3dnow -- indicate groups of instructions, others -- like nx -- indicate other features of the hardware like fields in the page tables. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, it wasn't an ad hominem attack. Those flags are all standard ISA nomenclatures; they have nothing to do with GNU/Linux per se, since they are the same even on other operating systems like Windows, MacOS X, and pretty much all the BSD flavours. What I'm criticizing is not your person, but your lack of WP:BEFORE which is misleading since libvirt explicitly supports those cpu hardware features according to the source code of the project itself: https://github.com/libvirt/libvirt/blob/87205512565529b8baeb108e3d0fe376fc20c967/src/cpu/cpu_map.xml. Therefore the content of the page is correct, that is why I'm sceptic about your claims: you are suggesting that the page content is unrelated to its title, and even more to libvirt (but that page is not about libvirt itself) which is not true. One could argue that having such list of hardware flags supported by libvirt is non encyclopaedic enough to warrant an entry in WP — and I agree —, but that has nothing to do with cpu flags or GNU/Linux. Per WP:DEL and WP:AfD you should provide a better (and valid) reason for considering a list of libvirt feature policies as not notable for WP. And since a page about Libvirt exists, you should have proposed a merge / redirect instead. Toffanin (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to throw oil an unnecessary fire, but Richard is right: these are specifically Linux's names for the CPUID feature flags (as reported in /proc/cpuinfo). Intel and AMD use slightly different names for some of these flags. —Ruud 09:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic on its own, and not really worth merging to libvirt (I assume libvirt can mask some of these to help VM migration, but WP:NOTMANUAL) or CPUID (has a better table already). —Ruud 09:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even setting aside all of the other argument's above this article does not have sufficient citations to be considered WP:VER. Even more troubling is that there was some WP:NOR done to gather this information the statement that these processor specific CPU features are called this where ever libvirt is deployed is incorrect and only applies to linux and in many cases only x86 . Andrdema (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have to say that I agree with 009o9 that the article would be better renamed to something like First U.S. Ebola patient or similar. This is supported by WP:1E which states Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. In other words, the article is not truly a biography covering the whole life of the subject, but is only concerned with this one issue. However, I am not declaring that a consensus in this close as there were insufficient other participants supporting the idea of a name change. On the other hand, nobody positively opposed the suggestion (with the possible exception of Alaynestone whose comment in that regard is unclear to me) so there is no barrier to an editor being bold and making that change outside of this AfD.

SpinningSpark 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eric Duncan

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

Duncan has not generated real (lasting) notability. His only claim to notability was that he had the misfortune of contracting ebola, and traveled to the US. At least one other person after him has done the same. The Ebola virus epidemic that followed his arrival in the US was quickly suppressed, and most of the 'keeps' in the previous delete discussion [13] were based on WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions that never came to pass. The article should have been deleted, but it seems fear and speculation at the time prevented that. Geogene (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD, this guy is notable alright, he was a toxic migrant, most likely motivated to travel to the US for better healthcare after handling an infected victim, and he lied to medical staff about being exposed to the virus. I also recall that the CDC departed from stated geographical containment procedures by keeping travel open and despite having billions in the CDC budget they dropped the ball in preparing first responders. I don't recall how much of the information I read was RS, but this and the main article should be revisited with a keen eye for exposing policy failures. 009o9 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @009o9: The goal is not to remove the information; the problem is that he isn't notable and worthy of his own article. Rather, he is a part of the Ebola virus cases in the United States, and the article there contains all of the relevant information about him. It isn't like the information is just going to go away; it is that he isn't a notable person, he's just someone who was connected to a notable event. See also WP:BLP1E. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States. WP:BLP1E doesn't strictly apply (and I'm not willing to stretch the "recently deceased" clause to cover this article), but the principle behind the policy is still apt: individuals who are merely a small part of a larger story with no further biographical context are better treated in the context of that story. I find the Keep !vote above disturbingly incompatible with WP:NPOV. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No long-term notability. Notable for getting sick in the midst of a popular press panic. Comments by User:009o9 blatantly racist comments and WP:POVPUSHING should be included as grounds for deletion. Referring to someone as a "toxic migrant" is totally unacceptable. On another note, why would someone travel to the US for healthcare when the US healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world? Arguing a keep on the basis that it serves the political interests of someone is astounding. AusLondonder (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder When you say "blatantly racist," what "race" are you referring to? As far as I'm concerned, migration/immigration is a policy issue plain and simple. He did not just get sick, he was living with someone who died from Ebola four days before he left Liberia, and lied about that contact (carrying her to the ambulance) during his screening. Duncan also had relatives throughout the US, but prior to the outbreak had never visited any of them and only made those plans two weeks before he arrived.[14] Do you realize how expensive that kind of air travel is? As for the cost of the US healthcare system, the point is irrelevant, emergency rooms must accept everyone, regardless of nationality and ability to pay. Duncan was patient zero in the United States and exposed massive failures in immigration and medical policy. 009o9 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment were crass and not relevant to the debate. I fail to understand how being a "toxic migrant" would make someone notable in any case. AusLondonder (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was just posted by The Washington Post, one minute ago.[15] Besides the previous AfD failure,[16], the article, Ebola virus cases in the United States is WP:TOOBIG at 118kb and much of the Duncan content should be offloaded here. The "Ebola virus" article is obviously going to continue to grow. As for the WP:BLP1E argument, the Duncan article passes item #3, the John Hinckley, Jr example. 009o9 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article says that the hospital was unprepared for an ebola patient. What does that have to do with Duncan, except that Duncan was unlucky enough to be the patient? Outside of entering the US with ebola, is there anything about Duncan's biography that is notable and encyclopedic, or even unusual compared to the thousands that died from ebola in Africa? Geogene (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the Ebola virus, his role was insubstantial so WP:BLP1E does apply. AusLondonder (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shows policy failures and is a nationally notable story. Ebola story is too long to absorb this material too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the Duncan article is duplicated (word for word) in the Ebola Virus in the US article, and there's no content in the Duncan bio "about policy failures", etc., so I don't see the argument to keep. Geogene (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While clearly WP:BLP1E, the key phrase is 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'. This was a very significant event, and this individual's part in it, albeit mostly inadvertent, was a key part of the event. Onel5969 ^{TT me}
Delete and redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States. The "event" was the Ebola crisis, not this person traveling to the US. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ebola virus cases in the United States is already WP:TOOBIG. In addition, TED's relevance isn't simply passive ("just got sick"). His movements and actions that lead to the first U.S. ebola outbreak, his interactions with Presbyterian, and the controversy surrounding how his apartment was handled, are all components of the story. Alaynestone (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "he got sick" doesn't cover it, then "he got sick, and was made a scapegoat" certainly does. But all that stuff about Presbyterian not being able to handle it and, his apartment, are out of scope for his bio article, they belong in the main article, Ebola virus cases in the United States, or some other spinoff. This is a biography. There's no bio here to write about, other than his getting sick, and that's all in the main article already. Geogene (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC

Disagreements on semantics aside, you and I agree that x pieces of information are notable. All we're really debating is where they live, which is fairly minor for such a long AfD. You say it goes in the main article; I say (again) that's great but the article is already too long and needs to be broken out into sub pages, particularly given the potential for that page to continue to grow. TED is a concise heading for the page (vs. "First U.S. Ebola patient" or something else much less encyclopedic). The notable information needs to stay, and it needs to live in a place that is helpful to researchers. He meets the other criteria the other keep voters have made above. Still voting keep, but mostly, I think we're spending more brain power and time on this than it's worth. Alaynestone (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States. Duncan is simply not notable and the article runs afoul of WP:BLP1E - he's not notable, the event he was connected with was, and the other article has enough information about him to render his own article redundant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent analysis by Alaynestone, the article is not a bio, more fitting is WP:PERPETRATOR. Renaming the article referencing,"First U.S. Ebola patient", "U.S. Ebola Patient Zero" or the like is a good idea. There is enough contradicting information in various articles as to TED's motives in the press, had he survived, he would likely have been prosecuted. (I.e., abruptly quitting his job with no explanation, purchasing a very expensive airfare (2 week lead) to visit children he'd never visited before -- or the alternative story that he rushed over to the U.S. to marry someone -- all after living with an ebola victim.) This was not "just a guy who happened to get sick," he's a case study in selfishness who risked his family's lives when he lied to customs officials. 009o9 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep preferable or redirect alternately -- at least as important as, say Typhoid Mary. Issue is not if people still know him by name -- it is whether his actions and their consequences generated sufficient notability, which I would say they did. I also commend @Alaynestone for his analysis. Quis separabit? 23:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Intensity and breadth of coverage at the time carry this article past WP:GNG. The story has generated ongoing coverage, as the response to the disease outbreak is analyzed. Long-term impact is now required when a story is sufficiently important when it occurs, rather, it is a factor that can indicate notability. In this case, however, there was impact on treatment policies recommended and adopted by other hospitals in the crises period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an index case of the best-publicized infectious disease outbreak in many years. There is far too much information to be merged elsewhere. This is an extremely well-sourced article. Citing ONEEVENT would eliminate all articles of famous sick people. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep as there's enough for a separate article here including the details although I would've considered the redirect to ebola cases article. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the policy reasons behind WP:BLP1E. There is no need for a redirect as the world will little note nor long remember Thomas Eric Duncan. As to the comments by Bearian, the infectious disease outbreak is best handled in the Ebola virus cases in the United States article. If that article is considered to be too large, then it is likely that it carries a lot of non-encyclopedic content, and can be usefully trimmed. --Bejnar (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies the general notability guideline. There is enough reliably-sourced content about him to warrant his own article. Jujutacular (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG at this point. One of the best publicized cases of infection in recent memory. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biswa Kalyan Rath

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

The article doesn't shows any importance of living persons and the reference's are YouTube videos. Josu4u (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. Fails WP:NOT. Nonsense article. Coderzombie (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found links at News, browser and highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shazina Gallery

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

Not notable project. No independent RS coverage. Sealle (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The main content of the article is a WP:COPYVIO from the gallery's own website, so would have to go if the article survived - I left it for the moment as it contains the nearest to any claim to notability. However the given references are dead links, and I am not seeing anything substantial: a Russian Google search delivers some guide listings and a brief unsigned piece on the gallery owner, but it isn't evident that it is a WP:RS on the founder or her enterprise. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: i've updated some information on the gallery and the activity. The main aspect, i guess, is this the only gallery representing artists from Abkhazia on the international market. I will try to maintain the page better - advise is very welcome, Thank you. Nino (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) User:NKuprava (Nino) is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]
Delete - Non-notable organization with a lack of reliable sources. Most of the article is unsourced except for the final paragraph. The first source just mentions the gallery, the second and third is simply about an exhibiton they held (and even then the sources also just mention the gallery), and the fourth and fifth also talks about another exhibiton they held. None of the sources listed talks in great detail about the gallery itself, and they do not assert the notability of the place. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked all the references in the article. Of the ones written in English, none meed the requirements of WP:RS. I do not read Russian, so I was unable to evaluate all the sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I appreciate the interest of the article's creator, searches don't show enough for this gallery to meet the notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HWCG LLC

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

Contested PROD, Non notable company where significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not exist. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All coverage is insignificant or non independent. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to this nomination for deletion, additional citations were added to demonstrate the notability of the organization and related reliable media coverage. The additional citations include articles and news coverage from established industry publications and journals such as Oil & Gas Journal, Offshore Engineer, E&P Magazine and World Oil. In further support of HWCG's notability, the organization has been invited to testify in front of various US Government committees on the progress in offshore safety since Deepwater Horizon (citations with links to this testimony are included in the entry). HWCG has played a major, notable role in the progress of offshore drilling safety in the United States, as reflected in the cited governmental testimony and 10+ other articles cited. --Cdevwrites (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) User:Cdevwrites is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better than this and similar with browser. Simply not anything to suggest meaningful better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still keep~~ You can vote only once As a note for anyone trying to search for additional sources/information, the organization was formerly called Helix Well Containment Group in the years immediately following Deepwater Horizon and seems only recently dropped down to HWCG. The linked search results for "hwcg llc company" in the previous comment use too narrow of a search term to get a full picture of coverage, as many recent news mentions just say "HWCG." To get the full sense of notability, it's necessary to evaluate coverage for both Helix Well Containment Group and HWCG together (although Helix Well Containment Group is no longer the organization's correct name). In that sense, you will see the organization has been covered by NPR, National Geographic, the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle, in addition to the sources already cited in the entry. For example, National Geographic called HWCG's containment system one of the "most hopeful energy developments" of 2011.^[1]. This coverage doesn't appear in the narrower search above, as it uses the organization's old name. Cdevwrites (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Most Hopeful Energy Developments of 2011". National Geographic. Dec 29, 2011.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polylog (journal)

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

As far as I can tell (mostly based on [17] and the journal's website), this journal is indexed in no significant databases and thus fails WP:NJOURNAL. I don't speak German though, and I'm not super familiar with philosophy journals and their indexing services though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even when searching through German language news sources, books, and the like, the journal doesn't seem notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree and I simply see no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shahnawaz Karim

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

There is a single trivial mention on Google News. Zero on the other searches. Unremarkable marketing manager. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches simply found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a couple of articles, but those sources were iffy. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I suppose this is a borderline case since he's gotten some popular notice for his actions, I feel like the fact that he's only somewhat notable means that in the spirit of the rules (if not the mere words) this article ought to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adhunik

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

Unable to locate reliable, independent sources for this subject as outlined at WP:NFSOURCES. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Adhunik "Apurba Banerjee" "Kaberi Bagh" "Abhishek Bagh" "Rimjhim Gupta"

Delete per (at best) being TOO SOON. Per WP:INDAFD, the word "Adahunik" gives LOTS of results for some company, but not a Bengali drama series, and the Bengali word "আধুনিক" gives Bengali sources that also appear to NOT be speaking about a drama series. "Apurba Banerjee" gives unrelated results. "Kaberi Bagh" gives no results. "Abhishek Bagh" gives no results. "Rimjhim Gupta" IS an actress, but no news is found in connection with this project. All that is found is the created social media page which is not RS. Being unverifiable, it misses out on WP:NF by a wide margin. If or when this ever gets coverage in acceptable sources, an return might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State University shooting

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

This is just another failed shooting attempt that only resulted in a couple of injuries. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Many other such articles are merely their own subsections in the school articles themselves, which is probably the best possible treatment for this topic. Versus001 (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This crime had no extended impact or coverage beyond the single event. ABF99 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Retracting my !vote to further research notability for this crime.ABF99 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:ABF99 for revisiting this, I had scrolled past it, but his retraction made me take a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRIME info belongs on school page if anywhere.--Savonneux (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails various criteria in WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Campus shootings are usually notable. In this case the tragic details got doverage that goes beyond routine news reporting, here:[18]. Also look at the stories in this search: [19] and at the ongoing covearage and referencing of event in political discussions: [20].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this crime by an unhinged individual were committed at a McDonalds or outside an Arco station, would anyone bother to argue that it wasn't a NOTNEWS situation? I didn't think so. Delete, per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delete as although this is an interesting article, this may be alike to several other events so it would be best mentioned at an article or list of these. Pinging DGG and Onel5969 for better consensus. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While E.M. Gregory has a good point, the key word in his state is "usually". This one clearly is not. Carrite's argument is most on target, but as Location, Savonneux, and the other editors have pointed out this fails per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gross domestic product#Determining GDP. Nobody wants to keep this separate as of now. Can be spun out later again via WP:SS. If there are concerns about the redirect, consider WP:RFD. Sandstein 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring GDP

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

This article is a mess, to put it lightly. It reads vaguely like my college notes from freshman year. This content is covered in a much more comprehensive and encyclopedic manner at GDP#Determining GDP. Since the components of GDP and the methods of calculation are crucial to understanding the concept, this is not a good candidate for a split. ~ Rob^Talk 02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Gross domestic product#Determining GDP Duplicates Gross domestic product per nom, and WP:NOTGUIDE anyway. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm weakly opposed to a redirect. There has been at least weak consensus that WP:NOTGUIDE applies to redirects in the past. I would consider that redirect to suggest that the reader will find guide-like content on the target page, which they will not. Also, GDP does not contain any discussion of the processes used to actually measure GDP as this redirect would suggest (i.e. what the various governmental agencies do to collect data). It only discusses calculating the value if you already know the values of components. Pinging Hisashiyarouin in case they care to comment on this. ~ Rob^Talk 03:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gross domestic product#Determining GDP Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd redirect, but some strong concern has been raised against such an outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unsure because it's not bad as a guide, but there are essentially no citations. If kept, it needs to be trimmed extensively. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seydibesir POW Camp

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

This is an entirely unsourced article making what is a wholly tendentious claim....(the reason for the alleged blinding was that the British were "hypnotised by the Armenians")acording to an evidently scrupulously impartial website. (not that I have much respect for the British, being one myself). True the POW camp may be notable but imo WP:TNT applies. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating

Keep.This is a well known tragedia of WW1. True, the article is a stub and it needs to be expanded. But there is no reason to delete it. Besides in the article I haven't seen any reference to Armenians and I don't know why the proposer mentions "hypnotised by the Armenians" . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known my eye. I mention Armenians because both of the very flaky sources I found on the Web mentioned Armenians. Come up with a half-way reputable source for this guff, please. It might be possible to come up with more if the place was referred to by its Egyptian/Arabic name, incidentally.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The camp itself may be notable, but the article isn't about the camp. It's about an alleged atrocity that hasn't, as far as I can tell, had a single shred of hard evidence put forward to prove it ever actually happened and which can join the serried ranks of conspiracy theories (the British apparently did it at the behest of the Armenians, an unbelievably unlikely story) and urban legends. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:RS can be provided. I have no doubt that following the campaign in Palestine, the British had a lot of POWs and it may be that a few went blind while imprisoned. I suspect that this is a story that has been greatly exaggerated, if not a plain HOAX. While this was the period before the Geneva Conventions, the British were used to keeping POWs in camps. This happened with captured Germans. I therefore doubt that the British would be incapable of dealing with their Turkish WWI prisoners. I suspect that this is an invented story to use to counter issues about the Armenian genocide. That was wrong, but perhaps capable of justification in Turkish eyes on the basis that their Christian subjects were potential traitors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there do not appear to be any reliable sources confirming that this event occurred. Karl Dickman ^talk 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, WP:EVENT and WP:NOR.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The creator may be a beginner and the articles may be problematic. But Seydibesir Event is notable. (Nobody can say that blinded 15000 soldiers is not notable) Please see [21] for the diary of a soldier . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But there is no even halfway reliable source for this lurid and improbable story. And the camp was called Sidi Bishr, btw. And was regularly inspected by the International Red Cross. TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be notable if 15,000 soldiers had been blinded, especially if they'd been deliberately blinded. But there's no reliable evidence for this incredibly far-fetched story. It seems to be a typical myth that has grown in the telling and is taken as fact by some with no real attempt to question its veracity or gather evidence. If it had happened then it is inconceivable that there would be no reliable sources. The "source" you cite says: "Because the British were brainwashed by Armenians, being told that in a potential new war they could come up against these soldiers again. The solution was massacre..." So the British Empire, which ruled half the world, was brainwashed by a bunch of Armenians into massacring Turkish soldiers, who they'd just defeated, because they might possibly face them again in war? And you expect us to take that as a reliable source? It's about as reliable as Nazi propaganda saying that the Jews were responsible for all the world's ills by hoodwinking every Western government. Those danged Armenians with their supernatural powers of mind control! Pity they didn't use them to stop the Turks massacring them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - at best these articles seem to refer to a myth that seems to have built up over time which was the probably the result of a far smaller number of prisoners going blind due to a vitamin deficiency caused by a poor diet (see for instance Yucel Yanikdag (2013) Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey, 1914-1939, p. 160 [22] published by Edinburgh University so meets the req's of WP:RS as far as I can tell). There appears to be some coverage of this topic (i.e. the myth) in Google Books (although I couldn't read the sources so cannot verify the content). Given this I am tempted to say the "myth" itself *might* be notable; however, the manner in which these articles deal with it is entirely different, being the unsourced WP:FRINGE version presented without context. Quite simply unless someone is able to rewrite these really quickly I think they do indeed need to be blown up lest Wikipedia further assist the spread of yet another hoax / myth. I've tagged both as disputed for now to alert readers at least. Anotherclown (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Seydibesir Event for lack of verifiability and Seydibesir POW Camp because the present article is not about the camp, and it is better to start over (WP:TNT) with an article at the camp's acknowledged name, Sidi Bishr, as TheLongTone suggets. --Bejnar (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiq Ismail

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

Written from a fan's point of view. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's an editing issue, not a reason for deletion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I agree with the above comment by Andreas Philopater that it's an editing

issue,not a reason for deletion.I feel someone is jumping too quickly to the Deletion Option when it may be a minor editing issue.I have looked at this article a few times and tried to improve it although I am not the original writer of the article.Today I have re-checked many of the given Reference links and they seem to be working fine.So I don't see what's the big problem that the entire article should be deleted.Original writer may have written it from a 'fan's point of view' which your top template message box says that it is allowed in this case.If someone mentions specific wrong things in the article,I am willing to try and correct them.Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs rewriting. The subject is a recipient of Sitara-i-Imtiaz and Pride of Performance, both of which are top civilian awards. That is sufficient grounds for notability in my view. Mar4d (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above mentioned remark.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply because he seems to have gotten local coverage and thus this honestly needs better familiar attention, my searches found nothing which isn't surprising but, again, this will need to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all due respect to everyone that is raising questions about Siddiq Ismail article's viability,I am wondering,"How could this non-commercial Pakistani singer that sings non-film, non-profit Naat songs in a local language

for local Pakistani public...can get 'coverage' internationally? This is a sincere question and my hope is that it's taken that way. The best the poor guy can hope for is recognition by the local Pakistani people which he has gotten after over 40 years of service by getting many prestigious awards by the Government of Pakistan.Again,I am willing to improve the article in the future,if and when I see more new info and sources on him.Of course I am a fan and I can try to be objective as Wikipedia wants me to be.Wikipedia policy also allows me to write some articles from a 'fan's point of view'.Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah McManus

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

The article is largely promotional in content and with only one album on iTunes (no physical release) and mentions some performances in a church, it fails WP:MUSIC entirely. The NPR reference links to a radio session appearance, the billboard.com appears to go to a list. None of this indicates any notability. Karst (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) @ 16:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) I suppose as my searches found nothing new and better so there's not much hope for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now – Does not quite meet WP:BASIC. Sources found include: ^[1], ^[2] (short article), ^[3] (very short article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Singer-Songwriter Mariah McManus Brings a Fresh Indie Pop Sound". The Independent.
^ "A Sweet Voice Ventures Into Tough Terrain". The New York Times.
^ "Mariah McManus On 'World Cafe: Next'". NPR.org. 28 October 2011.

Seems appropriate to delete as she fails WP:MUSIC, the article might be userfied afterwards, but I don't think there is any possibility of meeting notability guidelines any time soon. --Bejnar (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M Chandramohan

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. The article cites no sources and I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources on a quick search (the name being very common makes search difficult). None of the films are notable and the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated above. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 13:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply no better signs of improvement. Pinging DGG for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thik Thik Thikil

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

Note User:Arnav19 has moved the article to an alternate spelling (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No clear notability. No results at Google Books or Google News. The only Google results I get provide no context. The only reference in the article results in a 403 error and there are no useful archives at the Wayback Machine. It's also curious that the article creator used an accessdate of 1997. I suspect the only way that notability can be established is through the inclusion of Tamil-language references. Maybe. This could also be a hoax for all I know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment As context, it should probably be noted that the article was created by someone who has been previously blocked for serial recreation of non notable articles [23] and the other major editor has been blocked as a sock of a user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaswanthvijay/Archive overly enthralled with TV shows on a particular network. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack or sources. As a brand new soap opera I would suspect that it is WP:TOOSOON even if it were to become popular later. --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirect is a separate editorial action. Sandstein 11:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellary Porterfield

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 15:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (utter) @ 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 16:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to Video Game High School with which it sees she had the most episodes and my searches found results at Books, News, Highbeam and browser...but nothing to suggest better improvement. Wikipedia is not IMDb and IMDb is better equiped to take these articles. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Liston

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Author has turned this page into a hugely promotional piece based on no references or evidence of notability beyond the subject's own website and imdb page, neither of which is considered evidence of notability. ubiquity (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 16:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (utter) @ 16:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page was created on 25 August 2015; however, searching for coverage provides only very brief mentions, like most of his roles. An example is Ian Liston (born 4th August, 1948) briefly played Danny Burrows in Coronation Street during 1974. or this one-liner from a extensive review of the stage play The Dame of Sark in The Glasgow Herald of 23 July 1975: Two more Germans of very different types are Nicholas as the suspicious and correct officer, and Ian Liston, as a pathetically young rookie only too eager to display his family photographs. The Star Wars interview was interesting, but nothing more. The character was what the fans sought out, not the actor. Fails WP:ENT, fails WP:GNG. (By the way, not the lawyer "Ian R. Liston".) --Bejnar (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as IMDb basically summarizes it to a non-notable actor with no break through or otherwise outstanding work (no awards as well) and my search results at Books and highbeam were not convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed request, may be restored if new sources are found. Sandstein 11:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audiokite Research

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

No evidence of notability. References are mostly promotional or self-published. ubiquity (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 16:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found no better coverage with the best results being this and a few passing at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I'd appreciate if you commented so better consensus can achieved. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahir Hashmi Adeeb

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

My searches found nothing good at all aside from a few non-helpful blogs so there isn't even anything to suggest minimal improvement. Granted although this is a foreign subject and sources may not be easily accessible but we shouldn't keep an article like this simply because of that and there was enough time for any improvement (author's name and tone suggests a family member started this). Pinging taggers Utcursch and GorgeCustersSabre. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He died in 1999, internet sources may be harder to find. But he received the Hasrat Mohani Award and published a number of works. AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not only is the subject easily sourced pre se, the dance is mentioned dozens of times in fictional literature in a Google Book search alone. WP:BEFORE is mandatory. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage patch dance

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

This dance hasn't received coverage from what's considered reliable media. It fails WP:N. The sources cited fail WP:RS. The article's duration isn't a criterion for its existence. Tapered (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Reliable independent sources refer to this dance here and here and here. and here. Not sure why we'd want to erase these moves from the history of urban dance.ABF99 (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Some cultural interpretation of the Cabbage Patch Dance here. also included in an encyclopedia of African-American culture here. ABF99 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that are reliable a la WP:RS devote more than a short paragraph to this dance. It certainly exists and is mentioned it other articles. None of the sources justify a dedicated article in Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the term "significant coverage" in WP:N. Tapered (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ABF99's arguments and sources. Theredproject (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ABF99. In particular, the book Hip Hop Dance: Meanings and Messages is a good, indepht source for this dance. Cavarrone 08:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book provides verification of the existance of the dance, it does not provide significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junk sources, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG fails WP:NMUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources were found per ABF99 that appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC (Others). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing America

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

Interesting project, but surely this doesn't meet the film and documentary notability guidelines? Slashme (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts-

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

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

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

Keep per it already having sources speaking about the production and thus showing the project as specifically meeting WP:NF. I do not have to watch it or care one little bit about what it purports to document, as film notability is found through just enough coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it meets none of the "Other evidence of notability" criteria, it would only be saved by having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schmidt is incorrect about the guideline, the mere having of sources is not sufficient. One newspaper article from the hometown paper about their mayor's project and a couple of videos from the local Rhode Island NBC affiliate (channel 10) don't make it. By the way, the video links in the article are dead. The correct links are Interview: Steve Laffey… Feb 15, 2013 and Laffey Making A Documentary… Feb 15, 2013 and they work with Micosoft IE, but not Chrome. --Bejnar (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Thanks for the chuckles. Please review WP:N which tells us that having sources available IS sufficient: IE: topic notability is based upon sources being available, NOT upon their actually being used. And please, OEN is not an inclusion mandate, and are only listed "attributes to consider" when searching for sources. If you found dead links, you are welcome to fix them. And that your computers's version of chrome does not allow you to watch the two News 10 interviews (my own Chrome works just fine), is a problem with you and your computer, NOT with Wikipedia... which does not mandate Internet explorer only or Chrome only or Firefox or Mozilla only browsers. That "you" cannot personally view sources does not make them non-existent. Try updating your Chrome and your flash player and good luck. And please, Wikipedia does not demand world-wide or country-wide coverage. If WJAR were only some local backwater station, it might be dismissable as "too tiny to matter" that they made the editorial choice to cover a topic notable to their state. A little research reveals WJAR was Rhode Island's first television station and the fourth NBC station in all of New England, and we learn it is the NBC-affiliated television station for the entire state of Rhode Island (est.pop 1,055,173) and expanding into Bristol County, Massachusetts (est. pop 554,19). As Wikipedia does not demand nor require worldwide notability, determinable as notable in and to even a small state such as Rhode Island is just fine. It is a grave injustice to declare an entire state as inconsequential... specially as this NBC station serving nearly 2 million people is not exactly some" minor" church news bulletin. Again, thanks for the smiles. Best of luck in fixing your computer issues. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a very civil response. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a long on-Wikipedia relationship with, and a great deal of respect for Benjar. We rarely disagree on matters of policy and guideline. So I can only think it was a jest of some sort when he appeared to denigrate an entire state as "local", made a hilariously incorrect statement about my understanding of guideline, and was able to share that he has what must be computer issues when viewing online news sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Please, could you share with us the indepedent reliable sources for the notability of Fixing America that exist but are not used? Right now from the three cited sources (two video from the same interview) and what I have found, I do not see the substantial coverage, and my initial searching showed no coverage in Gale's magazine and academic databases. I did find a review in Rhode Island's The Current-Anchor here, a mention on the local radio station here, and a mention on Rhody Beat here. The imdb did not provide any direction Fixing America at IMDb. It would appear that there isn't much coverage, and that the coverage is not substanntial and is purely local to Rhode Island. I am happy to consider any other sources that you may have found. --Bejnar (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Begerith

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music bands) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:67.101.6.3 with the following rationale "removing PROD" (which suggests someone who knows our policies to some extent, and is trying to bypass them...). Anyway: the article still seems to fail NMUSIC. Comments appreciated, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no signs of better coverage and, although this seems clear, I'm inviting Wikimandia for comment. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with nom and SwisterTwister, I can't find anything to add. And the existing sources do not add up to GNG. Piotr: Anybody can WP:DEPROD so the IP knows our policies. They are not "trying to bypass them". -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Biennale of Architecture in Kraków

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (events) requirement." It was deprodded by User:User0253 with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just because it exists on plwiki does not mean that it satisfies notability guidelines. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found 2 sources in English in a quick search which I added to the article. I don't know Polish, but searching for the Polish words brings up articles that Google translate tells me are about the topic. The article passes notability, but does need copyedit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. For lack of participation... Sandstein 11:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Trace

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Magi4444 with no rationale. I see he added a reply on his talk page, and expanded the article a bit, but I don't see any required independent, in-depth, reliable coverage that would satisfy our requirements. Not all performers are notable, and this one doesn't seem to make the cut to encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 27 independent and reliable references. Furthermore, the subject in the article is a notable figure within his profession. Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment and propose that this article not be deleted. Magi4444 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magi4444: You have to do more than to say WP:ITSNOTABLE. Which references are independent, reliable and provide in-depth coverage? Passing mention in few newspapers does not count. He is a notable figure in his profession? Great! Which sources say so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is a notable figure within his profession, for example: "Mr. Trace has completed in one year what virtually none of us will accomplish in a lifetime. When the dust settled in Reno a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Trace emerged with a First Place win in the Stage Competition, The People's Choice Award, and the rarely given IBM Gold Medal for Excellence in Stage Magic. Mr. Trace's sweep of the big three competitions is about as rare as a Triple Crown winner in horse racing."^[1] Also, here are just 4 of the independent and reliable sources that provide in depth coverage on the subject: Chicago Tribune,^[2] Gazettes,^[3] Vail Daily,^[4] Genii Magazine (Cover Article), ^[5]Magi4444 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ "Wizards Of Odd". tribunedigital-chicagotribune.
^ "Magician Arthur Trace Brings Act To Queen Mary". true.
^ "Arthur Trace brings his artistic magic show to Beaver Creek". The VailDaily.
^ [2]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poland's Next Top Model (cycle 5)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Michh1 with no rationale. I guess Wikipedia:Notability (TV shows) is more applicable; either way this stub w/no independent refs fails this by a long shot. While Poland's Next Top Model might be notable, it's individual seasons are not, and this, as well as other seasons, should all be deleted or merged back to the parent article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article shouldn't be deleted. Every season in other countries has its own article. - Sss28 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS is not a valid argument. But do nominate those others for deletion, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as it seems basically unnecessary sometimes to have all these separate article when and if they can simply be mentioned at the main article. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Traditional Architects

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and seems to be a Wikipedia:Original research policy violation" It was deprodded by creator, User:Jutrasj with the following rationale "The proposed deletion was removed as it is believed this list is notable due to it receiving significant coverage. Many architects have their own Wikipedia page and this list further connects their individual pages in a convenient manner." I am afraid the list is still not believed to be notable. There are no sources suggesting it is not an OR compilation, and as such, the notable architects on that list, if any, should be simply categorized (through we would first need to define the term current traditional architect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prokonsul Piotrus, Your "reply here" link doesn't seem to work so I'll write my comments here instead. I find the many compiled lists on Wikipedia extremely convenient and useful. I fail to see the difference between the Current Traditional Architects list and all the lists located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists Why would you want to make Wikipedia less convenient and useful? -Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutrasj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jutrasj: See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to comply with Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, lacks criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and lastly fails to provide encyclopedic context. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --Bejnar (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I'm not seeing much of an obvious need for this. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions remain divided, so this is kept for a lack of consensus to delete it. Sandstein 11:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Netatmo

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by 212.83.148.19 with the following rationale "Added many references to make it match to Wikipedia:General notability guideline". Sadly, I don't see how the new refs help; no refs I see are independent, reliable and providing in-depth coverage. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I've found extensive coverage in at least 4 languages, including reviews of its products in The Guardian, TechCrunch, Wareable, CNET, etc. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FoCuSandLeArN: Would you care to share links to said coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is absurd. I list random sources following: [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; dozens more are available, as well as in print. There are ample references for this stub; heck I don't event know why this is a stub! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @FoCuSandLeArN: Passing mentions do not count: the fact that The Guardian mentions one of the company products in its article about cool gadgets does not mean the company can be said to have been covered by it ([34]). All the other links you have seem to be either passing mentions, or niche outlets, some of them possibly PR "you pay we write" ones. If you disagree, please tell us which of the links you provided are reliable, and why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete for now as I would've expected better results and some of the best results I found was this (that's not much). SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're joking, right? First of all, your search included the terms "French company"; secondly, the search you've linked includes extensive coverage, such as from Fast Company, The Telegraph, etc. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to FoCuSandLeArN's sources here is some coverage in French press: Le Figaro, Le Monde. Vrac (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vrac: While those are reliable outlets, the Figaro article seems to be a brief review of one of their products (a camera) and the fact it got some awards. Le Monde links are mostly passing coverage, through [35] seems to be a more in-depth, and so far seems to me the only good source we have. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more at Le Figaro, including this. Then there is L'Express, which I hadn't looked at, with this and others. I'll grant you that not all of the coverage is in-depth, but compared to the things we usually fight over at AFD this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH with flying colors. Vrac (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question about it, Vrac. Piotr merely stating that reviews are paid for without providing evidence for that accusation is no justification for deletion. I'm starting to think he's pushing some agenda here. Note that the reviews are by no means "passing mentions", and sources have without a doubt an editorial process. Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch, a notability claim in a reliable source if there ever was one. What does the nom have against these people? The stub is already bordering on citation overkill and Piotr's request for more references is absurd. Sources abound and were politely presented (an onus on the nominator, per WP:BEFORE), now kindly desist with the deletion crusade. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you accuse me of being on a crusade and having a hidden agenda, I'll ping an experienced editor and mediator, whom I'll ask to review both this article and my (and yours) arguments here: User:DGG. I'll add to my prior arguments that the Figaro entry seems to be your average run of the mill "start up gets financing" type of a news piece. [36] seems more promising, and seems the 2nd good source presented here, through I'd appreciate a review by a more neutral French-speaker (who can distinguish between a reworded press release and proper journalism). Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CORP. Those guidelines are rather specific about what constitutes significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Netatmo has not received that kind of coverage. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. Having award winning products is certainly a start for gaining the kind of coverage the guidelines require, but by itself does not make the company notable. --Bejnar (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The awards may not be important enough for implying that the company notable notability. As far as I can tell from the references, the CES gives multiple awards for every product judged to above a certain standard, with one product being rated "best" in each the category. There is nothing here reliable enough to show that these products were actually so rated as "best", or merely honored. The CES website is insufficiently explicit. I'm not an expert in this, but it certainly isn't obvious.

The CNET review is in my opinion the best of the references; though fairly brief, I do know they have reasonably high standards. . I cannot distinguish in this field for the articles in Figaro and LeMonde the difference between PR-instigated articles and and true coverage. Certainly, it is my impression that giving such full articles to what after all are quite minor peripheral products, that PR placement is the more important. But I would have to judge it not by the language used only, but by their habitual standards. And I do not know this. But I could quite as likely have come to the opposite conclusion; in fact, I wrote this out both ways! In the end, I'm going by the impression that it is not likely that a firm limiting itself to such products is really very important. There's a place for common sense, even in WP.

This shows the absurdity of our judging things like this by WP:GNG. The world is actually such that it is impossible for us in many cases to judge the difference between journalism and advertising, and this unfortunate fact makes a mockery out of our standards. It's time we went by the RW, not the media business, which I do not trust to be honest for topics such as this.

Incidentally, The pseudo-guideline INHERITORG has it exactly backwards. A product is not notable because it is produced by a notable company, because not everything even the most important company makes is important; but a company making notable products can not do so without being itself important. Inheritance, both in the RW as well as WP, ordinarily goes downwards, not upwards. A company becomes notable by its accomplishments--which for the ordinary business concern, are its products. Normally, it's easy to see the difference--most notable companies make several notable products. If in doubt whether we need a separate article on each, we go with the larger topic: the company, with sections for the products. When there is a company with only one important product, it can be a doubtful, because the product may indeed sometimes be much conspicuous than the company, and should be the topic of the article. In this case, there are multiple products of equal importance, so if they have each won a major award --for which there is insufficient evidence-- the article would be on the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this situation is more a commentary on the absurdity of AFD than the absurdity of GNG. The company has gotten significant coverage in the French press because its products are interesting. Le Monde and Le Figaro are the top two reliable sources for France and L'Express is not far behind. Le Monde is one of the best reliable sources this planet has to offer. We cover what reliable sources cover so GNG is amply satisfied. If the equivalent coverage were to be found in the equivalent UK or US sources this AFD would have been a snow keep.

AFD outcomes depend on who shows up; and in this case who shows up with how much linguistic knowledge, how much knowledge of the sources in question; and, frankly, with what agenda. The nominator has referenced a Signpost op-ed they wrote about promotion in Wikipedia; dare I say they may feel that they can't back down on this delete because of that. When I compare this to some of the other corporate crap I've seen kept at AFD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Horizon Group, the WP:ABSURDITY of the situation is demoralizing. Vrac (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch. Those are two prime examples of the state of AfD. AfC is quite similar in that regard...depending on who's available at any given time. That's the problem with running a quasi-collaborative endeavour. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Paliwal

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator User:Shashwat92 with no rationale. The article still has no independent, reliable, in-depth coverage, and listed Honors & Awards seem minor/regional/CV padding. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not the same author as previous versions (G7 deletes), but still likely a COI issue. I think he might be notable if better sourcing can be found, but I've not located any. StarM 01:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest better improvement so please feel free to restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Banks

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:AusLondonder with the following rationale "definitely not suitable for prod, seems to meet notability requirements". Well, please explain how he meets that. I don't see much coverage; appearing in one TV show does not seem to cut it, not unless it would generate coverage itself, which I do not see. All other sources seem to mention him in passing, or are not independent/reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder: WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:ITSNOTABLE (not a valid argument). You have to explain how it does that. I say it does not, and I did explain myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While this businessperson is a bit notable, it looks like he's pretty much known just for his association with more notable things-- such as the TV show in which he appeared-- rather than for his own actions. In the spirit of the general Wikipedia guidelines on notability, I feel like this article probably should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. On the basis of him being one of the regular panel on Shark Tank (Australian TV series). Although the article is so filled with puffery that it might be better to TNT it and start over. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andreas Philopater: And being a said regular makes him notable because it is supported by which of our policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has a recurring role on national TV in a show that garners repeated media commentary.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Andreas Philopater: Ah, in that case we are good, just please link to said repeated media commentary on him (if it is on the show it does not count - notability is not inheritable by association). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: I think that's where the "before" part of the deletion process comes in: you should have done that yourself already.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Andreas Philopater: Nope, you fail to understand this project policies. I looked, I found nothing worthwhile. Now you have to provide links to save this spam, then we will discuss their quality. Saying that they exist and not bothering to link them is not a valid or helpful argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Piotrus: I think you should have a read of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if you think I have to do anything at all. You put this article up for discussion and I foolishly assumed that meant you wanted people's opinions. I Googled the man's name in combination with "Shark" (otherwise you get lots of irrelevant hits to wade through), and I saw coverage of him specifically, in his capacity as "Shark" (or using that to identify him to readers), in the Sydney Morning Herald and other major news publications. It was enough for me to offer a (weak) "keep" opinion, but I don't care enough about the outcome to want to do it a second time just so you don't have to. What worries me a good deal more is your gladiatorial and rather pestering pinging of me for proffering an opinion that you don't share. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry I am wasting your time asking for your opinion, I will not ping you anymore per your request. Since you couldn't be bothered linking the article you found, I had to spend my time recreating your search. I did find [37], which discusses him for several paragraphs in the Private Syndey celebrity column. While it is a reliable source, it is the first one we found, and we do require multiple (2+) reliable, in-depth sources. Also, there's the WP:ONEEVENT problem, suggesting that he is better of being mentioned on the show's page then in a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep as although sourcing could be better, this seems notable and like any of the American "sharks" of Shark Tank. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Character animation. Sandstein 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digital character

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

This one's edited at least two dozen times in over 11 years. I don't see a reason to keep an article about a type of character depending on their medium (see "static character" section), especially I can't locate similar standalone articles about characters in other formats. Then the article goes into character depth which has to do nothing with character format. Perhaps it should merge into character animation? TheGGoose (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems like something that would be encyclopedic, but looking for refs I was able to find only one definition: [38] ("Digital Character Development", Rob O'Neill); the book is not searchable online outside scribid. As scribid is not free, I can't even fully verify it anyway. Unless we can produce sources, I support the merge to Character animation as proposed by the op. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This topic is definitely encyclopedic although I had trouble finding accessible books to use as sources. I did find one reference related to 'how-to' create one of these digital characters and inserted it into the article. Also, it is no longer an orphan since I was able to link it to another article. This topic has the potential of becoming valuable information if someone with access to the references were to edit it. Isn't there a video gaming project that would be interested in this? Isn't wikipedia bursting at the seams with articles about video gaming? This article should be a MAJOR article since it is the root all video games. Bfpage |leave a message 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Character animation. It's not that new... I saw it being done in labs fifteen years ago. As Bfpage says, it is the core of computer-based animation. I think someone just overlooked this page. New Media Theorist (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per New Media Theorist. Not notable enough to stand alone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the lack of accessible electronic sources is not an impediment. Use you libraries! There is plenty written on topic. I have tagged the article as "refimprove". --Bejnar (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Information in relation to the topic is sparse and repetitive of other Wikipedia pages I see little of value to merge into other articles but there is no point in keeping a page that is mostly point form summaries of other summaries. Andrdema (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Devine

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Scene awards no longer count towards inclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won of ANX Award, Complex magazine ranked her at #40 in their list of "The Top 50 Hottest Asian Porn Stars of All Time", 17x interwiki!!!!, well known in world.... Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim the subject meets PORNBIO. No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial biographical content. The "lady of the lake" AVN reference is surpassingly ludicrous, demonstrating the general cluelessness of the commenter and the failure of AVN to have minimal editorial standards regarding reliability on subjects that won't get them sued. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Making one of Complex magazine's lists of hottest porn stars also doesn't establish notability. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Even if you count the Hannah Harper AVN column as semi-reliable (I don't), it's not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG, #40 in a list compiled by an obscure magazine and only in-trade coverage can not establish notability Kraxler (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Fox

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

Fail PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG, the many sources presented at the 3rd AfD fail to establish notability, being mostly in-trade publications, and some very trivial mentions in mainstream media (as having a minor appearance in a film which won an award at an adult film festival) Kraxler (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looked at the PORN BIO guide, linked here: ----> [39]. Noticed the guideline says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." AVN is mainstream for that industry. The same way ESPN is mainstream for sports, just as Aviation Week is to aviation and so on. Without looking at the past nominations, it seems likely this was kept for that very reason. Anynobody(?) 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not an accurate interpretation of PORNBIO. "Mainstream media" there means non-pornographic performing arts. See this PORNBIO talk discussion from a few months back [40], which includes links to some AFDs demonstrating the consensus interpretation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's and Kraxler's accurate assessments, the logic of my prior nomination, and the policy-based arguments in prior AFDs. Article does not include a single reliable biographical source (or, far that matter, any nontrivial biographical content whatsoever. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Perez (CEO, HH Global Americas)

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

No reliable, third-party sources found per WP:GNG. The "Forbes Magazine" and "Yahoo Finance" references are merely press releases and advertisements written by HH Global (which itself is a company of questionable/un-established notability). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure If I am doing this correctly but I removed the references in question but disagree with the Forbes comment as this was written from their communications department. I also added newsweek source that shows the company is notable and Mr. Perez is a board member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaoneincus (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whose communication department? The Forbes piece is marked "Promotion" at the top of the page, has no author listed save the HH Global logo, on a website that clearly states at the page bottom: "Forbes Custom is a custom publishing site that features special advertising sections from Forbes magazine as well as industry articles and videos from our partners. The editors at Forbes were not involved in the creation of this content." (emphasis added). The Bloomberg profile verifies existence but not necessarily notability (see WP:COMPANY for guidelines on demonstrating notability for companies), and even if HH Global is notable, notability is not inherited, thus not all board member may warrant individual articles- they still need to satisfy basic notability or other guidelines described at WP:BIO. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing with the best results of my searches here and here. With that, there's also nothing to suggest much of a company article. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable CEO of a non notable company. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Libertarian Party

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

Does not appear to be a notable political party. Other than coverage from a libertarian website called Libertarian Home, I wasn't able to find enough significant coverage from reliable sources. Most hits are blogs on Blogspot, election/registration news (aka listing of candidates, not of whom appear to have won any election), and pretty much that's it. I would not be against a merge to Libertarian Party (UK), a party which it is affiliated with. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a duplicate of The Scottish Libertarians, recently speedily deleted under G11. If this is the case, G4 would apply, as would the original G11 criteria, obviously. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, and the main purpose of the article appears to be promote their policies. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether to move to the title of her book can be discussed further on the article talk page. Sandstein 11:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Teege

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

Non-notable person. A minor German writer who happens to be the grandchild of a Nazi war criminal. Not significant enough to warrant an independent article. The page should be deleted O.R.^Comms 13:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: WP:AUTHOR: "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." = Washington Post; London Times; Seattle Times; BBC; Deutche Welle reviews. Duckduckstop (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This matter has come up on Wikipedia before, i.e. whether or not we should have articles for the children and grandchildren of Nazi war criminals. With very few exceptions, the answer is generally no. Also there are WP:BLP concerns when articles begin appearing on Wikipedia about living relatives of major Nazis. -O.R.^Comms 16:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a notablilty policy trumps your list article's deletion 4 years ago; sorry for your loss. perhaps you should review notability policy before nominating other articles, lest this come up before admins. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to report what you like to administrators. In general, AfDs nominators who act in good faith are not subject to any sort of punitive action. -O.R.^Comms 19:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:GNG nearly all the citations are not independent of the subject. Also potentially promotional. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that her book has received reviews in various sources like the Washington Post, Seattle Times, MacLean's, Irish Times, and the Jewish Book Council, all places that are considered to be reliable sources. Some of other sources appear to be about the basic gist of her discovering who her grandfather was, but they are also in RS: BBC, NBC, and People. People would probably be considered a little tabloid-y, but it's still considered a RS. Sixth&I and DW appear to be unusable for various reasons. Now if it was just the news articles about her discovering her heritage then I'd argue for a firm delete, but she has written a book about this that has received coverage and the reviews for that are enough to push her into notability territory, if only just so. The question we need to ask right now is this: would it be better to have an article on the author or one on the book itself? A book article would be a bit tidier, although since there's already an article about the author we could probably just add this information into the article that's already existent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable per reliable third-party sources. Being a book author who's a relative of the major Nazi war criminal on her biological mother's side (she placed her in foster care at the age of three) makes the whole affair exponentially more interesting actually. Her memoir is a bestseller in Germany, says Macleans. This AfD must be a misunderstanding. Poeticbent talk 18:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. This nomination appears to be based on a common misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED. NOTINHERITED states that having a more-famous relative and having your own notability based on a connection to that relative is not by itself a sufficient condition for notability. But neither is it a sufficient condition for non-notability; it's still possible in such cases to have independent notability, gained in the usual way through stories about you or your works. And the subject here clearly has such notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Clearly notable per reliable sources mentioned above by Tokyogirl79 as well as many other sources here. Agree that this is not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. She is notable on her own as an author. In response to the question by Tokyogirl79, maybe just keep this article on the author for now, rather than change it to an article on the book. Easier to add to it later if author writes more in the future. ABF99 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME to My Grandfather Would Have Shot Me as clearly WP:AT the scope and coverage of the article is mostly about the book, and not the author per se. The Book is notable and properly referenced. The author apart from the book has very little content separate from what is necessary for the book. So the article, as it is written is not a biography, it is a book article. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Poeticbent. KConWiki (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thync

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

~~Un-notable product. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 12:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)~~ I withdraw the nomination. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 12:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case made for deletion by red bean is mere proof by assertion, and reflects failures to (1) read the article carefully (it's about a company, not a product), and (2) perform some due diligence before AfD nom, considering that a news search turns up not only the sources cited already in the article at this writing (Technology Review, Wall Street Journal -- possibly enough to establish notability in themselves), but many more: at CNN [41][42], The Independent [43], Bloomberg [44], USA Today [45], not to speak of all the gadget-review websites. Of course, it's a crappy article at this point. I should know: I wrote it. But "crappy" =/= "un-notable". I almost sandboxed it, but then thought, "No, maybe the next thing that happens is somebody will be WP:BOLD and improve it. So be WP:BOLD and create it." Unfortunately, there's always the possibility in such cases that "what happens next" will be something counterproductive. Like an itchy-trigger-finger AfD nom :-( Yakushima (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Diaz

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ARTIST. The only reference is a blurb for an audio compilation. Note: possible self-promotion. Note 2: this is not the Dan Diaz whose wife chose assisted suicide (the dates of birth are different). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails WP:ARTIST by a mile. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 12:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable. -O.R.^Comms 14:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete for now as I simply found nothing better with the search "Dan Diaz composer music" aside from a few mentions but nothing to suggest outstandingly good improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Descends (novel)

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

Non-notable book from publish-on-demand publisher. Not in WorldCat, ISBN is not found by OttoBib. Apparently self-promotion from the start. Note: the article is now very short because of foundational copyright problems. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. Search threw up references to other novels with the same title, but not this one.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply redirect to author as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G5 by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani films of 2016

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

The references are not notable for first title. As for second its IMDb reference. The release dates are non-official and not covered by any news media. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've deleted the article under WP:CSD#G5 criteria in that it was created by a sock account in violation of their block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks

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

Note that it is a relisting after it was requested that articles were re-bundled from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japan national football team hat-tricks.

A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. Even though the Champions League is the most prestigious club football tournament in the world, hat-tricks are still not that notable in it. As well as season articles, we have List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers and List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers. This topic comfortably documented already, ratehr than this slightly arbitrary repackaging.

It's important to note that, by and large, lists such as this do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being original research. A list of hat-tricks in these tournaments is simply unnecessary and not notable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the following related discussions:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my comments on your other nominations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the point of a deletion discussion? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lists of notable topics, per the previous AfD and all the ones directly beneath this one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be consensus here that lists of hat-tricks in top-level continental competitions are notable. Giant Snowman 16:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GiantSnowman .The list is clearly notable Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This list is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as it is a list of hattricks made during UEFA Champions League matches. See WP:DISCRIMINATE for an essay on what ‘indiscriminate’ means. Also, the nomination fails to mention why exactly this list is not notable. I believe that, given the fact hattricks are often mentioned in news reports, this list is very notable. — 37 ^(talk) 14:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. -- R45 ^talk! 15:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is absurd. Very notable. We have articles for league hat-tricks so we should certainly have one for Champions League.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Confederations Cup hat-tricks

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

Note that it is a relisting after it was requested that articles were re-bundled from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japan national football team hat-tricks.

A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. Though both the Confederations Cup and Copa America are infrequent and important tournaments, we already comfortably document the goals, statistics and events of these competitions - we have articles like Copa América records and statistics and FIFA Confederations Cup records. The hat-trick lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, in a slightly arbitrary way.

It's important to note that, by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being original research. A list of hat-tricks in these tournaments is simply unnecessary. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the following related discussions:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is a discussion about this issue at WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the point of a deletion discussion? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - List of Copa América hat-tricks as a worthwhile fork from Copa América records and statistics due to the length of the list, but merge List of FIFA Confederations Cup hat-tricks with FIFA Confederations Cup records as simply not enough hat tricks have been scored to warrant a separate article. Fenix down (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lists of notable topics, per the previous AfD and all the ones directly beneath this one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable list of notable events, this is becoming disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be consensus here that lists of hat-tricks in top-level international competitions are notable. Giant Snowman 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. -- R45 ^talk! 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above clearly notable list .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 hat-tricks

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 hat-tricks

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

This deletion listing includes all national professional football league hat trick lists that I could find. Note that it is a relisting after it was requested that articles were re-bundled from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japan national football team hat-tricks.

A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. We already have season articles for most clubs and the leagues themselves. We also list top goalscorers, notable matches, finals etc. As such These lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's important to note that, by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being original research. There are hundreds of professional football leagues - a list of hat-tricks in each of these is simply unnecessary. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the following related discussions:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I think hat-tricks in a professional league is a notable subject. For example, The Scotsman newspaper noted that Steven Naismith's hat-trick for Everton last week was the first by a Scottish player in a Premier League match for 17 years. It then also lists all other hat-tricks by Scottish players since the PL was formed in 1992/93. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought that establishing a consensus was the point of a deletion discussion.... --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - List of Premier League hat-tricks is a featured list. I simply cannot understand why a list identified as one of the best on WP is now suddenly not notable. All the other lists here are similarly from fully professional leagues, so see no reason why these are inherently less notable. I also think that this AfD should be closed (by an uninvolved admin as I closed the last mass nomination 24 hours ago) procedurally as the nominator was specifically asked to let a wider discussion here run its course to ascertain a wider consensus about the notabilityof hat tricks in football and there suitability as list subjects. Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - hat-tricks occur less than "semi-commonly" and can often be outstanding achievements, contrary to what the nominator suggests. If "these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia" then that would be something to consider on a case-by-case basis, not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deleting everything at once, because I know for a fact that they often do exist. Hat-tricks are notable - there is a siginificance attached to that figure that cannot be said of 2, 4 or any other number of goals in media and statistics alike. These lists are therefore not indiscriminate, and, in my opinion, ought to be kept. Macosal (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all stop this crusade, deal with things individually, try to establish some kind of sensible level here rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be consensus here that lists of hat-tricks in fully-professional leagues are notable. Giant Snowman 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Per all above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. -- R45 ^talk! 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japan national football team hat-tricks

AfDs for this article:

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

This deletion listing includes all national football team hat trick lists that I could find. Note that this is a relisting after the first AfD was closed for bundling too many articles together.

A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. For national teams, results are already listed (eg Japan national football team results and fixtures; Romania national football team results etc) which will of course list hat-tricks. We also list top goalscorers, notable matches, finals etc. Hat-trick lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, in a way which most alamancs, encylopedias and football websites don't bother doing. I think that's key for judging the worth of a list - by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being original research. There are 200+ national football teams - a list of hat-tricks in each of these is simply unnecessary. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the following related discussions:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. A hat-trick for a national team is a notable event. For example, hat-tricks scored by Scotland players is discussed by many sources (search). Loads of articles in reliable sources discussing the fact that Colin Stein was (for a very long time) the last player to score a hat-trick (eg1 Sky Sports, eg2 The Scotsman). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought that obtaining a consensus was the point of a deletion discussion! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:BEFORE notes, subject-specific guidelines should be checked. I don't think we have previously had a discussion here about the notability of hat-trick lists, therefore a discussion was needed at WP:FOOTY first before placing all of the articles on AfD. You ignored comments from two users (Fenix Down and GiantSnowman) in the WP:FOOTY discussion that we should have a full discussion about the issue first. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - the irregular occurrance of hat tricks at international level as seen in these lists completely negates the initial rationale presented above. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Per Jmorrison230582 and Fenix down. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per all the above and the List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks is a featured list ffs. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be consensus here that lists of hat-tricks for senior international teams are notable. Giant Snowman 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Jmorrison230582 and Fenix down.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. -- R45 ^talk! 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bakers (bakery)

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

This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source, and there are no reliable sources to confirm it's the notability of this company, thereby it fails to pass WP:CORP. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 07:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a long established company with a substantial share of the SA biscuit market [46]; an independant website[47] describes them as one of SA's oldest & best loved biscuit brands.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whilst the article needs some substantial re-working / copy-edits to bring it up to a satisfactory standard - the subject is definitely a notable brand in South Africa and if you search under 'Bakers Limited' there are plenty of references ([48]) to establish its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems locally important and notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unified commerce

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

To be frank, this looks like an unhelpful digression on an already unhelpful business buzzword, and none of the sources cited right now look reliable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree wholeheartedly with CoffeeWithMarkets, sources do not look reliable. samtar ^(msg) 09:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to the Wikipedia deletion policy I believe this article should not be deleted. The source is a trade publication that is well read and referenced in the ecommerce industry, and is notable because of the large amount of trade publications publishing content around the concept as it is separate from other concepts in the industry. Here is another independent and reliable source that discusses the concept http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500249048/Unified-commerce-the-next-step-for-retailers. The concept of Unified Commerce is young, true, and as a result some mainstream publication haven't published work around it yet. However, it will last because it is so unique from other concepts in the industry. Krowe Let's discuss —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart when better as my searches found nothing good aside from a few results at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in the searches to show that it is currently notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Gandhi Hall

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

A non-notable women's hostel within Aligarh Muslim University. Can't find anything other than passing mentions. A redirect to the university was reverted; which btw would anyways be wrong as many such halls exist in India. Example at IIT Kharagpur (ref). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a university prospectus; this is an unremarkable hall of residence, & I agree that given the name redirecting is not a suitable option.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the university I find nothing that indicates notability. It was built in 1995, so is not a historic structure. Can find nothing about an architect that might make it notable. No news mentions or other RS to indicate that it is anything other than a standard university living facility. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the university as susunW suggested seems to be the better option. — Sanskari ^Hangout \ _{संस्कारी} 14:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect to AMU and not IITK? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully with the above: for this to be a suitable redirect it would have to be renamed mentioning the university & the redirect created by the move deleted. Seems like a lot of work for no good reason.TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation for Human Rights

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

Relatively small non notable organization, whose only claim to importance is that it is associated with or part of some umbrella groups, which also have some members that are in fact notable. RThe contents are either its internal affairs of no interest to anyone outside the organization, of its listing of worthy goals.

We have tended to give a free pass on both notability and promotionalism to groups with noble purposes that we approve of. That's not the right approach for an encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a tad confused on this article. The group themselves seems to refer to themselves mostly by their acronym and the usage of The International Federation for Human Rights and the International Federation of Human Rights varies. They themselves are a umbrella group, though most active outside the English speaking world from what I can gather - I suspect more sources exist in other languages. A couple of notable groups are members of this group, the Center for Justice and Accountability, SUARAM, Human Rights in China and the Center for Constitutional Rights being some. They also appear to be used as an expert group by the media; 1, 2, 3, 4. And it has existed for nearly a 100 years. Surely there is more out there? JT_dale^Talk~ 13:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Found out why the name is a mess. It's a translation; the group is French and is official name is the La Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme; 5 JT_dale^Talk~ 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, the article is poorly sourced, but, as JTdale pointed out, the organization seems to be a well-known and well-respected organization in Europe whose expertise is often called upon by the media, which I think satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, the organization has a long history, and judging it based on the lack of sources online strikes me as a form of recentism. I also think it's very significant that the FIDH is the oldest human rights organization in the world; I don't know if that's attracted the requisite widespread attention, but if it has, that would also satisfy WP:NGO. -- Irn (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Also, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, but sources do exist out there for further quality improvement of the article's contents. — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if this can be improved which I question because my searches found nothing better than some of the same links at Books, News and highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - One of those situations when language barrier poses a challenge but what is known about the subject suggests sources are available. I would presume being the oldest such organization is a good indicator of notability (i.e. it doesn't mean it's notable, but just like winning an Oscar award, having an endowed professorship, or a charting album don't take the place of sources but indicate sources should be available). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organisation's webpage www.fidh.org is in perfectly sound English with translated options, albeit with a European flavour of presentation. To call this a relatively small non -notable organisation seems absurd; their page says that it's pushing a century old, has a multi million dollar budget and broad international presence. The webpage is current and recently updated which indicates a good professionalism in their staff. I'd label it a long established significant player in the field of human rights and monitoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedAshmore2013 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Peter Stroh

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

I can't see significant notability, and the promotionalism, even after a little cleanup by other editors, self evident. As for notability 1/ There is obviously no notability under WP:PROF. The publications are popular, not scholarly. 2/ Looking quickly, I thought he might be notable as an author, because I remember encountering The Fifth Discipline. Checking Worldcat, I find he wasn't the author--and looking carefully at the article, he wrote at most only one chapter. There are two other less well-known books given--again, he wrote a chapter. ( The sort of minor magazine articles listed don't make for a notable author. He is apparently about to publish a book that he did write as sole author, Systems Thinking For Social Change; the publisher is Chelsea Green Publishing, a publisher of books on sustainable living, not on business management. If and only if the new book becomes a best seller would he be notable as an author.

As for promotionalism , writing an article with emphasis on the names of more important people and trying to assert one's own importance by having worked with them can best be described as advertising. The use of adjectives of praise and quality throughout adds to the effect. The usual reason for writing an autobiography here is the desire to have the public know more about oneself. Very few people are able correctly to judge their own importance. There's been considerable cleanup by Voceditenore, but the promotionalism keeps getting re-added. And there's no fundamental notability in the first place. . This article should have been deleted in 2010, when it was first submitted. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pertinent analysis by nom. Don't have anything further to add; clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some Books, browser and Scholar and this would need to be restarted when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The actual content of the article is virtually all unsourced, though liberally laced with references to the publications of the subject or the WorldCat listings of those publications. His highest Scholar cite appears to be 10. Voceditenore wrote in 2010 "inappropriate promotional tone, no independent evidence of notability"; nothing has changed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two ways this could pass the criteria for inclusion: (1) the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) which requires significant and in depth coverage from multiple independent sources, or (2) the alternative criteria at WP:PROF. The subject pretty comprehensively fails both at this point. I have not been able to find any independent coverage of the subject himself. I did find one pre-publication review of his forthcoming book in Publisher's Weekly here, but that isn't nearly sufficient for either an article on the book or on its author. Things may change if the book turns out to make a considerable impact accompanied by significant independent coverage of its author. At that point, and only at that point, should the article be recreated. The obvious COI and promotionalism are not in themselves a rationale for deletion. Promotionalism can be fixed, but the non-notability cannot. Voceditenore (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristyn Caddell

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

The only sources I can find about Caddell are from her employers (past and present) and news surrounding the sex scandal. I don't think that this one event is enough to make her a notable individual, and without it she's just a reporter doing her job. No significant awards or distinctions. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither notable nor interesting.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although I found several results at Books, News, browser and highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement especially with the fact this looks more like a personal and LinkedIn page. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She had two Emmy noms, but who doesn't? —Wylie pedia 09:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dervish Dreshaj

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

Irrelevant person, of no real significance. Also, article created by blocked sockmaster. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any coverage of anyone by this name in RS so probably not notable per WP:GNG. The fact that it was created by a known sock is probably sufficient grounds in itself. Anotherclown (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as the article was written and moved to mainspace by socks of a banned editor, and the only other contributions come from IPs editing at the same time who were probably the same person. Hut 8.5 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xploit Infotech

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

Many of the claims for significance aren't backed up by the references. I cannot find anything relating to the womens safety app being launched by the government minister mentioned in the article, and the 'supercop' government project appears to just be a solution to an issue the government might be facing rather than something endorsed or commissioned by the government. Nz101^Userpage_Talkpage 23:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGSIG and WP:GNG. I failed to locate any reliable independent sources that explicitly discuss the said company in a neutral and analytical way. If anyone manages to do so, please share and I'll change my vote accordingly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added reference of cm launching video on youtube non mention news was edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.128.127 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references, support notability. Some of them a explicitly market as a reprint of the company's own press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...delete for now simply because News only found some more links but not anything to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G5 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary Bazj (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven W. Smith

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

No indication of notability Derek Andrews (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is pretty much a resume. No claim to notability.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A7 - No claim of significance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / restore redirect: This is an unsourced WP:SPA biography which was dropped over a previous redirect to Steven Wayne Smith so avoiding new page curation. The unsourced BLP aspect could be resolved by an external link to the subject's site but I see no evidence that the subject is notable, whether as WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability.--Staberinde (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability, no sources, looks a bit like a CV - Happysailor ^(Talk) 07:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm local from here and can't say I'm familiar with him and although my searches found results at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above to dump this from the history and then restore redirect. Nothing to suggest WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. There is a claim of notability in the article: that he holds a named chair at what is claimed to be a particularly large seminary. Superficially this would seem to pass WP:PROF#C5. However, it does not. The press release I found from his employer noting the chair [49] makes it clear that such titles are given even to assistant professors at that institution, and also makes it clear that he was given that chair while he held a purely administrative role (one too low-level to pass #C6). So regardless of the seminary's size or prestige such chairs do not count as the step above full professor that is the intended meaning of the WP:PROF criterion. Nothing else in the article gives any hint of any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I desperately wanted to vote "keep", to preserve the integrity of WP:PROF, but David is spot on. St Anselm (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I was going to vote keep as the holder of a named chair and as a Dean, which is normally a higher post than professor, but perhaps I do not adequately understand the American academic system. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dean is not "higher" than a professor, it is merely a different type of job. A professor's main job functions are to teach students and perform research; a dean's main job function is to manage a subunit of the university. People who are professors can become deans, and people who are deans can go back to being professors, with no change in their academic rank. We have a criterion for being at a high enough level as an academic administrator to warrant keeping an article, it is WP:PROF#C6, and the level it describes is the head of a whole university, typically one or two steps above the deans in the administrative hierarchy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Most Hopeful Energy Developments of 2011". National Geographic. Dec 29, 2011.

[2] "Singer-Songwriter Mariah McManus Brings a Fresh Indie Pop Sound". The Independent.

[3] "A Sweet Voice Ventures Into Tough Terrain". The New York Times.

[4] "Mariah McManus On 'World Cafe: Next'". NPR.org. 28 October 2011.

[5] [1]

[chicagotribune.com-6] "Wizards Of Odd". tribunedigital-chicagotribune.

[7] "Magician Arthur Trace Brings Act To Queen Mary". true.

[8] "Arthur Trace brings his artistic magic show to Beaver Creek". The VailDaily.

[9] [2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]