Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:53, 8 September 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Soileau

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

apparently trivial career DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing obviously good. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding pretty broad coverage not just about his work with Lana Del Ray, but also modeling and his clothing label. He meets notability guidelines to me. Fuzchia (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His clothing label is gaining interest as shown in the Vogue article I just added. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sadly it looks like he has diverse sources and major coverage. (Who said "Fashion is the lowest form of Philosophy"?) Looks like a Keep, and will be much improved with quality content like this ref.New Media Theorist (talk) 15:50, 8 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 per WP:SK #1 (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fabric of Reality

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

Poor article, not notable Drpixie (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed a lot of content that was unsourced and as such, would be considered WP:OR. I have no problem with someone wanting to merge it back into the article if they can source it. It wasn't awful-awful, but the lack of sourcing really gave it a big OR feel. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help from WP:PHYSICS with finding sourcing for the now removed sections of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to find some reviews in RS and I've removed the unsourced portions, although I need to stress that this was only done because it was completely unsourced and I do endorse the content being readded with sourcing. The book appears to be quite notable in the physics world so reviews weren't all that difficult to find, although in defense of the nominator I do have to say that they were predominantly in academic sources, which are not usually accessible by the general public - so I can see where their concerns came from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not notable? Just one of the most widely cited and influential popular science books of all times. Instead of crying for deletion, how about just adding some of the many reviews appeared in very reputable journals and magazines.Giulioprisco (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely cited in other books and papers, as you can see from a search for the title and author on both Google Books and Google Scholar. I think there are some tools available to academicians that would be able to get a better feel for how cited it is. Late add: to my surprise, Amazon reports citations in other books; for The Fabric of Reality it reports citations by 100 other books.TJRC (talk) 21:33, 3 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Former Heads of Defence Services of India voice alarm on issues affecting Defence Services and Veterans, 2015

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

NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the page seems more like a news article or opinion piece. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and it's WP:NOTNEWS Kraxler (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per Kraxler. The underlying topic might warrant an article, but this isn't the way to do it Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem like this should be a stand alone article. Some of the information, as Nick suggests, could be placed into a higher level article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 5 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre–election day events of the Singaporean general election, 2015

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

seems a clear violation of NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first time I see a list with daily updates on an upcoming election, a textbook violation of WP:NOTNEWS Kraxler (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, it amounts to listcruft of mundane events. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 11:40, 6 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qazim Laci

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played for the Albanian U-17 team, and that he has been an unused substitute for Olympiacos. Both of these reasons are explicitly excluded as sources of notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is he is an Albanian U-17 international (played in the UEFA European Under-17 Championship [1]), he is also included in Olympiacos F.C. players' list for the 2015-2016 UEFA Champions League [2] and most importantly he has won 1 Greek Championship, 1 Greek Cup and 1 Double with Olympiacos: Laci Trophies: Super League Winner 1x: 2014/2015, Greek Cup Winner 1x: 2014/2015. He has won a Championship title, a Cup title and a domestic Double in a fully pro league, which is a very important source of notability. Gtrbolivar (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are only passing mentions and he has not made any professional appearances. Being named as part of a Champions League squad and being capped at under-17 level are not sufficient to pass. In fact, even an under-21 cap wouldn't be enough in most cases. Spiderone 18:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Contrary to the claims above the player has not one these trophies, merely been at a club that has. Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 8 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Casha

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

Promotional and non-notable " Ramon Casha conducts weddings, baby namings and funerals, as well as other secular ceremonies." The extensive references seem to be his letters to the editor, or postings on his own site--or not even to mention him. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found results such as News and Books but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a notable person's article who represents the irreligious society in Malta including secularists, atheists, agnostics, liberals, etc because yet you cannot find online books or other news from your search is quite shocking. He has been working on equal rights and for secularism for years. It is as recent as 2015, this year, that he managed to satisfy and acquire rights from the Maltese government. Over time more material will be available. You are missing also his activities, human rights campaigns, referendums, Maltese language spellchecker, his work position etc. it is likely that you always want to point out basic things in order to delete. For most Maltese Barack Obama is NOT notable enough but I am sure you should not delete his article. Continentaleurope (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC) User:Continentaleurope is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being an out atheist or secular humanist activist makes him unusual... Esp in Malta. He has many sources as confirmed by article and Google search. Article needs cleanup, not delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unusual is not notable. Even if he were the only one in the country, that still wouldn't be notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 6 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) 02:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and possibly COI; does not meet notability guidelines. The article tries really hard (which is a dead giveaway of promotionalism) but is obviously promotional. Being a humanist/atheist (even a fairly notable one on the island) on an island with a population of 400,000 does not confer encyclopedic notability. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The citations are a mind-numbing over-bloated scatter-shot grab-bag of passing mentions, self-sourced information, speaking engagement mentions (which are tantamount to press releases), and completely irrelevant trivia. DGG said it best in the nomination: When we get to such trivia as "Ramon Casha conducts weddings, baby namings and funerals, as well as other secular ceremonies", and the hobby trivia in the Personal Life section, we know we have a self-promotional dud on our hands. Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not often we get to see somthing that's so obviously promotional or vanity driven. A plethora of refs is not an automatic indication of notability and Internet barrel-scraping for sources is a classic case of trying to render a subject notable that really isn't. Does indeed look strongly like a case of COI by an aide, PR person, or agent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the most ugly examples of footnote stacking I've seen this year. Remember Timbo's Rule 14: Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up any RS to show this person meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misogynoir

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

This subject is not notable. It is one person's clear promotion of their self-coined term, violating WP:NEO. WP is also not WP:NOTESSAY. This hasn't been cited near enough to warrant inclusion, as there is only journal we can verify where this term has been used not written by the author. We don't even have access to the other journal. I've also removed the Tumblr "references" that people keep adding back in. Cagepanes (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This is notable, see Gradientlair.com and Everydayfeminism.com for sites that use the term. 98.240.156.44 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That first site is someone's personal blog, so it's not a reliable third party source. The second may be a reliable source, but that still does not address this being WP:NEO. A few mentions on a small website does not making a neologism notable. --Cagepanes (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it does get used in reliable sources; for example, [3] from The New Republic. However, I'm not sure that people actually discuss it rather than use it. Anyone got a source that discusses the term beyond giving out a sentence-long definition? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Cagepanes: What grounds do you have for accusing the page creator of being the person who coined the term? The userpage of the creator and the identity of the person listed as coining it seem pretty clearly different. It also looks like you removed a bunch of sources based on being primary or a broken link. Though in your edit summary you say "We do not use first person references", there's not actually a rule prohibiting using primary sources. They're not ideal for most things, acceptable for a few, and don't really contribute to notability, but removing them while nominating seems bad form. Removing a source because the "link does not exist" is, on the other hand, specifically something we don't typically do. I'm not saying any of this was in bad faith (primary sources aren't good to have and if we shouldn't include WP:UNDUE content based solely on primary sources, and I'll add that you were entirely right to remove the Tumblr sources), but it does seem like your edits may be influenced by an impression that this is an article based on self-promotion rather than one written by a student about a topic that interests him/her (speaking of which, I've just notified the user about this discussion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this was created by the original author, it still violates NEO without question. This is not a widely used term, and most of the sources were not appropriate. In trying to clean up this article, I removed the inappropriate ones, then decided after looking online that there isn't widespread enough use of this term to even warrant it being on WP in the first place. If you disagree, that's a separate issue. You're also free to add back in the sources you don't agree with me removing, but I still maintain that they're no appropriate as they definitely violate WP:UNDUE. The only exception to that was removal of the dead links, which I was not aware was a policy. If you have a link so I can read up on that, I'd appreciate it. Tumblr was removed, as were WP:UNDUE first-party sources. I still maintain, whether the other refs are added back or not, that this term does not pass NEO. --Cagepanes (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The most common issue with neologisms is that even when there are sources, they aren't sufficiently distinguished from existing concepts we already have articles about (another word for the same thing, or another term that's only slightly different). In this case, I don't see a logical merge target. So, given that there are sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG/WP:NEO, I'd have to say keep. Here are sources about the subject (beyond just use of the term -- and there are many of those out there) - CBC, journal article published in Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, Abernathy Magazine, Paper, The Awl, Model View Culture, Gradient Lair (a blog referenced by WaPo and Vice), Le Delit, The Crimson White, The Visibility Project, Meta-Activism, Kinja (article-as-definition), Everyday Feminism, Hoodfeminism, Our Time Press, Eyewitness News, Brown Boi Project, The Frisky... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important thread in black feminism. The article meets WP:NEO as it has multiple secondary sources that are about the term and not just using it. WP:NOTESSAY was cited as a rationale for deletion, but this article clearly has reliable sources that demonstrate the material is verifiable. Coiner Moya Bailey elaborates on the term in Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society. Other scholars have offered critical analysis of the term:

Macias, K. (26 March 2015). ""Sisters in the Collective Struggle": Sounds of Silence and Reflections on the Unspoken Assault on Black Females in Modern America". Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies. doi:10.1177/1532708615578415.
Durham, Aisha; Cooper, Brittney; Morris, Susana (2013). "The Stage Hip-Hop Feminism Built: A New Directions Essay". Signs. 38 (3). The University of Chicago Press: 721–737. doi:10.1086/668843. JSTOR 10.1086/668843.
Pérez, Elizabeth (28 July 2015). "The ontology of twerk: from 'sexy' Black movement style to Afro-Diasporic sacred dance". African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal: 1–16. doi:10.1080/17528631.2015.1055650.
Isoke, Zenzele (October 2013). "Women, Hip Hop, and Cultural Resistance in Dubai". Souls. 15 (4): 316–337. doi:10.1080/10999949.2013.884449.
Wodda, Aimee; Panfil, Vanessa R. (2014). "Don't Talk to Me about Deception: The Necessary Erosion of the Trans Pandemic Defense" (PDF). Albany Law Review. 78 (3): 930–931.

Some of these sources were already in the article when it was nominated, so the nomination should not have implied that there was only one self-published article verifying use of the term. @Cagepanes: Per WP:PAYWALL, we don't reject sources just because they are difficult to access. If you ever need access to a source, try asking at a relevant WikiProject or at WP:RX. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the implication was correct. The journal articles that you've added were not there at the time of nomination. There was one that was able to be accessed, meaning my statement in the nomination was correct. --Cagepanes (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, at the time you nominated both the Macias and Durham journal articles were being used as references. While you display a remarkable competence for someone who started editing less than a month ago, you might want to review WP:BEFORE if you plan to continue working on AfDs. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're reading what I've written. I stated that I could only access one journal article that was open, with the other being closed. Those were the Macias and Durham articles. Is that somehow unclear for you? Perhaps go back and read what I've written, and that should help clear up some of your confusion.--Cagepanes (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the compelling arguments presented Rhododentrites and Gobonobo.Theredproject (talk) 20:13, 7 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) 10:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khurshid Ali Khan (Singer)

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

BLPPROD removed by creator. Refs added are either to other Wikipedia pages or are unreliable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article is nominated for deletion if has references and this article is about a Renowned Ghazal Singer from India everybody know about him.1.23.49.153 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the article needs good sources preferably third-party such as news and magazine to ensure better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this Times of India, I think nothing can be more trustworthy than TOI, what more you need for the reference? I think this article should be remain in wikipedia.1.23.50.213 (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One source is not enough and, to be honest, although TOI is a good source, they're news articles aren't always good and reliable (searching there always gives random results). What this article needs is more third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only independent sources are a document proving that he used to be a vet, and a society-pages news article which mentions him along with about 10 other musicians in one paragraph. The general notability guideline requires in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. This article clearly fails this standard. --Slashme (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. Couldn't find anything on search engines to suggest they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:00, 9 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 The Heathertones. Why wasn't this BOLDly redirected ? .... Anyway don't usually close on one !vote but this clearly should've been redirected so don't see much point in relisting & thus dragging it on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bix Brent

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

Delete: as non-notable performer. Quis separabit? 23:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Heathertones as although this could simply be deleted, it seems she was best known for this group and it's acceptable to have at that; my searches of course found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 5 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 The Land Before Time (franchise). Courcelles (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Land Before Time: Journey of the Brave

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

The subject is an upcoming animated film that appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. While the film is definitely not a hoax, very little information about it is currently available. A search on Google News finds Tasteofcountry.com, which appears to be unreliable because of WP:CIRC (article cites the film's Facebook page, which is really a mirror of Wikipedia), and Theboot.com, which is duplicative of the Tasteofcountry.com source. No release date, cast (other than Reba McEntire), plot summaries, personnel, or production/development details are verifiable. I can't find any press releases or other promotional material for the film either, other than the trailer currently linked in the article, which further solidifies to me that it might be too soon. With regards to WP:NFF, there's no indication that the film is out of pre-production, so it fails that as well. The article should probably be redirected to The Land Before Time (franchise) until more information becomes available. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A complete and utter waste of time. If and when the film is released, a worthwhile article could be created. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon. The only info I can find is various articles that cite (as above) various blogs and such citing this article. Reba McEntire's Facebook page (apparently official) does state she is voicing a role, but gives no other details and refers readers to the series' Facebook page (another WP mirror) "for more info". - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per Mz7's suggestion. The project has had a couple titles already as can be seen by the name in the table here The Land Before Time (franchise)#Films. If production ever does start the article can be resurrected. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's nothing to suggest content for a separate article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 5 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. If anyone wants to redirect this title to Work breakdown structure, go ahead. Deor (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work package

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

This is a promotional article for Advanced Work Processing, a technique for which I can find almost no references except the publications of the Work Packaging Institute. Almost everything cited here is the work --see the adjacent AfD for Olfa Hamdi. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article needs more work, but what justifies deletion? Is your objection on "Work package, the project management technique" or "Advanced Work Packaging, the new technique that is an improved piece of Work package"?

A simple Google Search shows:

A yearly conference about Advanced Work Packaging here
A for-profit company already consulting about the technique: Construct X
There is already Books sold about the technique here - No promotions (I'm not affiliated with anybody) :p
Construction Owners Association of Alberta explaining the technique.

I'm sure there's much more, but I didn't have a chance yet to improve the article more. That's why I opened a discussion on the talkpage in case anybody had other thoughts.

That is a credible enough topic to educate Wikipedia readers about it. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 04:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't this also a term in linguistics? Bearian (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to this previous version of the article or (as a very close second preference) redirect to Work breakdown structure. I am rather less than thrilled to be reminded that one of the easiest (if usually unintentional) ways to get mediocre but not terrible content on a fairly (but not blindingly) certainly notable topic deleted from Wikipedia is to add clearly promotional material concerning a somewhat related product to the article and wait for one or other of our more experienced and war-bitten editors to wander by and try to oblige. In this case, an earlier not noticeably promotional stub version of the article does exist, and there is a probably clearer exposition in another article of the topic in its standard context. So either of the above solutions would be better than straight deletion of the article - though I would have little if any objection if the last six months' edits on the current article were WP:REVDELLED. PWilkinson (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Work breakdown structure. PWilkinson's suggestion to revert to an older stub version is reasonable, but that leaves us with what is effectively a WP:DICDEF. As it's already discussed to a similar degree in the work breakdown structure article, that seems like a logical place to redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although redirect is not a bad idea. Looking at the history of this article, it began as an article about a workflow concept for project development (in 2008) and blossomed recently into an article with a clear promotional bent. Had it not taken that latter route it would possibly have lingered as a not-terribly-useful but innocuous article. As it is, it violates wp:promo but does not meet wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and LaMona. At best, redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Slack

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

No assertion of notability that meets the guidelines for biographies. Slashme (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a vanity article written mostly by two single-purpose accounts, Tslackjr (talk · contribs) and Chandex (talk · contribs), along with Songman55 (talk · contribs) who admitted to being Tom Slack. – Fayenatic London 06:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfortunately my searches found no good sources to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 5 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olfa Hamdi

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

does not appear to meet WP:PROF or any other standard. . Her Google Scholar record, cited in the article, shows one publication with 3 citations, one with 1 citation, and nine with 0 citations. The only publication by the title "Advanced Work Packaging" in WorldCat is her Master's thesis. She has no doctorate, and no academic position. The publication referred to of which she is a coauthor is apparently "Advanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution, Version 3.1 Implementation Resource 272-2" where she is presumably one of the team. There seems some significant COI: The article was contributed by the same editor who a few months ago added the long section on Advanced Work Packaging to the article on Work Packaging, a section that quotes only Hamdi's thesis and material from the Advanced Work Packaging Institute. The article contain uncited promotionalism: "the renowned research team RT272"; "considered to be an industry best practice and a game change". DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. My interest in this topic is more about Technology than Project Management, being a Software Engineer impressed in the dramatic change in Work Packaging Management process and what a massive impact Software can do to this topic. Hamdi's work grabbed my attention because of an award she got from the Tunisian Community Center which led me into this. Anyways, that's out-of-topic of this discussion.

It is my mistake for not finishing the article in my sandbox before publishing it, as it still needs more work. I tried to start with Hamdi then work more on the RT272 team (a coalition between COAA and Construction Industry Institute) and their work so I can bring more education about Advanced Work Packaging. The Work package article only had a definition before I started working on it, even though Advanced Work Packaging is just a part of it.

Does this seem related to WP:PROF mentioning a list stating they "have taken leadership positions in industry and academia"? Otherwise, I guess I'll just work on her publicity in Arabic media.

My main issue was most articles & interviews talking about her research in this topic is in French, which I don't like translation. I guess I'll just be more careful with citations and use the Arabic citations with translation (at least it's something I can read).

Thoughts... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator states, there is no evidence here of academic or any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet any other notability criteria.Jakejr (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are Google Scholar with 6 citations, and a lot of works by the subject, not anything about the subject, except that she got some award as "Tunisian Student of the Year in the United States". That hardly passes ANYBIO. Kraxler (talk) 14:21, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Boyd (computer engineer)

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

The article has largely been written as, or as if it were, an autobiography, and also largely in a highly promotional tone, by single-purpose accounts, which are quite possibly the sockpuppets of the subject of the biographical article in question. The subject's notability even in the his own specific field of computing appears relatively obscure, perhaps just falling short of the general minimum threshold for the purpose of Wikipedia. There is a bereft of reliably-cited sources for the subject in the article, and the very existence in Wikipedia of a biographical article arguably gives the subject, who, as an otherwise relatively obscure British expatriate computer engineer in China in his 60s, much undue additional notability, certainly through the conduit of Google and also of Facebook. If anyone who had ever done any sort of work whatsoever directly or indirectly on or about MS-DOS or IBM PC-DOS back in the 1980s and 1990s deserved to have based upon that particular fact alone an article for himself on his own life here on Wikipedia, there would probably be tens if not hundreds of thousands of new articles herein. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He is only mentioned in passing in the sources given (except for one trade news publication, which really doesn't confer notability), and his notability in general seems to be marginal at best. --Slashme (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defintiely fails WP:BIO. also suspect AUTOBIO concerns. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 10 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snugpak

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

Article about a brand of outdoor equipment with no sources or assertion of notability. Slashme (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than the following here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:49, 7 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. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Noise

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

This has been around for ever without a single ref. The text seems to provide no special claim to notability, and as it stands it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7 --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NM. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The founder seems more notable than the band, but there's still coverage. They seem to have an extensive catalog, and I've located several reviews of their work: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Also a few interviews and such: [8], [9], [10]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant coverage in WP:RS? Also the article says many of their recordings were self-released. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the history of the band, and it's not easy to find facts online. But they got reviewed by Spin, CMJ, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Punknews.org, which is enough for WP:BAND #1. I don't know what a "more important indie label" is, but they apparently released albums on Relapse Records and Alternative Tentacles, both of which I would think satisfy #5. Also, this is perhaps contentious, but they seem to have originated or had a hand in originating powerviolence, a genre (see [11] from Vice; also [12] from The Quietus and [13] from San Antonio Current). That would maybe satisfy #7. They have no hope of satisfying the other criteria, but they seem to be well-known and respected within their niche. If you're wanting an article in Rolling Stone about their history, no, I can't find that. I can do more digging to find articles about their history, but I don't think these are available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply because of the listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources provided - Notability does seem to be there by a bare minimum!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion was "relisted" twice by @Esquivalience: on Sept. 15--the first listed it on the daily log for that day, the second one commented it out. Fixed now. --Finngall ^talk 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage identified is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Talk Radio - The Kyle Kulinski Show

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

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

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

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

Fails on WP:GNG. Sources are unreliable. Hitro talk 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as my searches found no better coverage other than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily find kyle's show on youtube just by searching secular talk on youtube or google, there's literally no reason at all to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaosjoker909 (talk • contribs) — Khaosjoker909 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anyone can have a YouTube or Google page...but is there good third-party coverage for this? If not, this article is not acceptable and especially if it can't even sastisfy WP:GNG. I suggest familiarizing yourself with how editing works so you can understand what can be accepted and what cannot. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need a third-party coverage, when you already have the original source? If your house is on fire, do you just stay inside until someone else sees the fire, too? Just go to YouTube, type in Secular Talk and you have all the informations you need, or do you think YouTube is just messing with all of his 188.000 subcribers and Kyle Kulinski is just created by CGI?

"A topic is presumed to merit an article, if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (from Wikipedia:Notability). Two of them being people (Kyle Kulinski) and web content (Secular Talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.64.24.30 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — 47.64.24.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We need third party coverage to establish notability. We follow guidelines here at Wikipedia and we try to adhere to the policies such as WP:GNG andWP:RS. By the way, Youtube facebook and twitter are most unreliable sources on Wikidpedia, actually Wikipedia is itself an unreliable source. Please read WP:RS and provide reliable citation. Hitro talk 20:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Kyle Kulinski never met the guidelines, it got deleted. This show does not meet WP:GNG that is why we are discussing it here. Why do you think it passes WP:GNG, explain it elaborately. Hitro talk 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are crazy man. Secular Talk has nearly 190,000 subscribers and is one of the most heavily trafficked channels in the TYT Network yet it doesn't meet your guidelines? If that's true then your guidelines are broken and it really needs to change. el8^0ne 06:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, it seems helps to have third-party sources because primary sources have the ability to be misleading something take companies for example (an article entirely sourced by press releases is not going to hold). Editing here is not easy but once you understand it it's better. We can draft this to your userspace in the meantime until it gets better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a YouTube channel, so how exactly would YouTube not be a reliable source in this case? it exists, it has nearly 190.000 subscribers and thousands of videos. You can't get more reliable than this, it's impossible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.214.124 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.176.214.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source. Watch this video on youtube. This video has 17.6 millions views. Subscribers or views don't make anything reliable. Plus have you bothered to read WP:RS? it has been mentioned several times here. Hitro talk 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Seculartalk. There was recently a ranking on google putting seculartalk on the top 1% of newscasters online. That by itself makes them notable. On top of that there plenty of sources which a simple google search for kyle kulinski verifies. Blatantly notable imo. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article and Kyle Kulinski article were created on the same day, the latter got deleted A7 speedily. I don't understand what kind of rankings you are talking about, at least give some references or citations. kyle kulinski google search emits twitter on the top..followed by facebook, some youtube videos and reddit.Nothing reliable. It does not blantantly make him notable imo. Hitro talk 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The show has gotten some buzz lately, but nothing in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. News had several mentions, but nothing substantial, and all from dubious sources. Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with One15969. There's no real coverage of the show itself that I can find, except by promotional materials put out by TYT or the show itself. There's a bunch of mentions in largely unreliable sources and some borderline, but generally discussing a guest on the show, not the show itself. IMO needs at least one solid source discussing the show itself before it merits inclusion. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Onel. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, merely being popular does not make one notable. This show doesn't seem to have attracted the significant reliable source coverage that we need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources or assertion of notability. Having a popular YouTube account does not automatically make someone notable. Could this perhaps be redirected to List of YouTubers instead? Let me know what you think. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This whole discussion is absolutely ridiculous. I get the feeling some sort of personal agenda against Kyle is playing a big part in this demand to delete a perfectly accurate and verifiable entry. Anyone from Conservapedia here (Kyle has some beef with them)? Please stay there, if you can't handle facts!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.232.31 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.176.232.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Not notable by the standards of wikipedia. If you don't like those standards, this is not the place to complain about it. This is. - Richfife (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient indication of notability. To the IP above making accusations of conservative bias; find two news sources giving this show substantial coverage, and the article can always be recreated. After all, Wikipedia has no deadline. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 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. Will userfy for the purposes of merging upon request. Swarm ♠ 03:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement

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

The article is a coatrack. The title of the article is taken from a seminar by Caroline Heldman and an unpublished book (since retitled) by Heldman and Danielle Dirks. However, the article itself mentions neither and instead argues what I assume is Heldman and Dirks' thesis with vaguely- and un-referenced content.

I proposed a merge into Campus sexual assault (see discussion). The only consensus we were able to reach was that more input was needed, preferably from AfD.

Delete as nominator. The article cannot be fixed without a complete rewrite and/or title change, the current title is not a notable subject, and there is no content worth saving. Second option, merge to Anti-Rape Movement. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no Merge I believe that the coatrack-i-ness of the article merits complete removal. The entire article reads like a Point of view fork. The sources relying on an unpublished book, and vague content support its removal as well. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've dug into the source (Dirk's manuscript), I also wonder whether this is notable as presented.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is worth saving and covers a real and notable movement. I am not adverse to a name change, but there is significant content present, and more that can be added (including references to the Heldman and Dirks work as mentioned above). I have some ideas for improving it, but would prefer someone with more knowledge of contemporary feminism to do so, or at least evaluate. I also disagree that the article is not NPOV as critiques of the movement are well represented. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and build it out in the campus sexual assault article as needed. Most of what's in this fork article is covered in greater depth in the current main article. I wouldn't argue there's an NPOV problem with it, but it's highly duplicative and not really necessary on its own.Mattnad (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coatrack article - the authors of this article can expand the campus sexual assault article. -- Callinus (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coatrack, and can easily be discussed (in a much more balanced way) in other related articles. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescope/retitle to focus on the contemporary campus anti-rape movement. This is not a "coatrack" but rather a legitimate spinoff article focusing on the portion of the contemporary anti-rape movement that addresses campus rape. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss the movement (Ms., US News & World Report, New York Magazine) and the backlash against it (New Republic, Time). The movement has led to policy changes on campuses as well as Federal legislation and a White House task force. The closer should note that there has been off-site canvassing for this AfD in men's rights forums. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You knew about the reddit post before you suggested taking this to AfD. Calling it canvassing now is dishonest. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per ≥gobonobo ⁺ ^c. Also, doing a search on Google turns up the term in campus web sites and was written about by New York magazine. Copyedit shouldn't be an AfD issue. Subject is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gobonobo's sources and argument. I would further add that the claims of Coatrack are a red herring. There is zero proof of any link between the seminar at Oxydental College and this page. They merely use the same phrasing. The bottom line is that this is a real phenomenon, and meets notability guidelines. I would also like to make sure the closer sees Gobonobo's comment re: canvassing. --Theredproject (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to campus sexual assault and anti-rape movement (the redirect should be to the former) - The title is a proper noun that suggests a clearly defined movement with an agreed upon name (or at least a popular name). But in addition to defining the Movement as "a series of movements", there just aren't sources to support a subject based on this name. So the next logical step is to consider renaming to better reflect the underlying concept. But what is that concept? We already have an article about campus sexual assault that details recent events and activism. We also have an article about the anti-rape movement which talks about this. The rape culture article is more of a theoretical perspective, but it's worth mentioning that these examples via campus sexual assault are discussed there, too. That's not to say that these are stories that should only be covered in one place, but that it's a set of examples relevant to multiple subjects combined with increased public/media attention. I don't think that means there's a new subject here; I think it means campus sexual assault is finally getting the media attention it deserves and that it's becoming a more visible/active part of the anti-rape movement. It's now an important part of those two subjects[' histories] and should receive solid coverage at both. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 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 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Per Rhododendrites, I feel like this is an example and should be in Campus Sexual Assault or Anti-rape movement. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:40, 17 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti (US Company)

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

Promotional page for borderline notable company. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify the "clear promotional" content? If you do, then we can make changes. This company is notable and deserving of a wikipedia page. Nobody here is trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion. Imarapaholic (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but what the article needs is more third-party coverage and my searches found none. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but feel free to draft & userfy as my searches found no better coverage than currently listed. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irretrievably promotional and essentially non-notable. User:Imarapaholic, if you don't see that this looks more like a company blurb than an encyclopedia article, I'm seriously concerned about your level of understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. --Slashme (talk) 22:26, 6 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 23:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Fertig

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

Biography of unremarkable journalist. References, both in the article and those I could find myself are WP:ROUTINE or being referenced as a journalist -- the coverage not being about the subject herself. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fertig is a Murrow award winning journalist who has worked at WNYC (largest radio market in the US) for over 15 years and is frequently heard on NPR (i,e, by millions of listeners across the entire US) . She has written a book (http://us.macmillan.com/whycantuteachme2read/bethfertig) and been written about herself:

Sylvester, Judith L.; Huffman, Suzanne (January 2002), "Beth Fertig, NYC Radio, New York City", Women Journalists at Ground Zero: Covering Crisis, Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 17–19
White, Ted (February 2005), "Women journalists at ground zero", Broadcast News Writing, Reporting, and Producing, Taylor & Francis, p. 544
Izar, Ralph; Perkins, Jay (December 2011), Lessons from Ground Zero: Media Response to Terror, Transaction Publishers, p. 156

Granted, this article is a stub at this point. I created it because I saw a red link in another article. Perhaps the cites are not 100% there yet, but the subject is clearly notable.

My read of WP:ANYBIO "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." is that the Murrow award qualifies and this should be a snow-keep.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mr. Swordfish. Both the Murrow and DuPont awards are some of the most prestigious in her field. Her bio on the radio station speaks about them, but there really should be independent cites to back up both those claims. As long as those claims are valid, she appears to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fertig is a noted reporter, who has not only written much on the subject of education, but has been written about, e.g. here:

Sylvester, Judith L.; Huffman, Suzanne (January 2002), "Beth Fertig, NYC Radio, New York City", Women Journalists at Ground Zero: Covering Crisis, Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 17–19
White, Ted (February 2005), "Women journalists at ground zero", Broadcast News Writing, Reporting, and Producing, Taylor & Francis, p. 544
Izar, Ralph; Perkins, Jay (December 2011), Lessons from Ground Zero: Media Response to Terror, Transaction Publishers, p. 156

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Amulets

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

There's no references found for this article, and so can't find any importance on Wikipedia. Josu4u (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, there's just nothing to salvage here. The entire article is unverifiable and written in broken English. (comment by U:Non-dropframe)
Comment We do not delete articles merely because of poor English, if they can be improved by rewriting. I don't find the English all that awful--the main error is writing it's for its. Every individual sentence is understandable. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It cites absolutely no sources to indicate its notability, the structure/layout is completely off and it generally doesn't seem salvageable. I actually nominated this article for speedy deletion when it was even worse and had failed to notice that the original author just took it upon themselves to simply remove the speedy deletion tag...Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article has been essentially re-written from the ground up, keeping it seems logical. Good job, Lerdsuwa! Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable. See CNN Travel [14], Reuter [15], NY Times [16], Lonely Planet [17]. Every Thai Buddhist has at least one of those: see this news related Thai Prime Minister [18]. The language used in the article is not too bad and can be improved. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is clearly notable, but I'm not sure the article as currently written is worth saving. Might as well rewrite it from scratch. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, make that a keep. Just noticed that Lerdsuwa had done some major clean-up on the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really shouldn't have been relisted a second time. Consensus has become rather clear; the only reasons given for deletion (lack of referencing, unverifiable and written in broken English) have been addressed. Pinging User:Josu4u and User:Non-dropframe, in case they have further arguments. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:26, 16 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Majumder

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

No actual notability besides 1 press release in a newspaper DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to support notability and I even used the India WP's search engine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 8 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. The only valid arguments are for delete Courcelles (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pabebe Wave

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

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

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

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

Appears to be a minor web phenomenon - little third-party coverage except in social media. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ubiquity (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep its all the rage here User:Abdulsaked (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NAD, and unreliable sources. Chihciboy (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep avid aldub supporter here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedypays78 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep nothing can stop the aldub fever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.123.12 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "I like it" is not a valid reason for keeping the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. This seems to be a term limited to the Aldub fandom. A mention in the AlDub article is enough no need for separate article.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even worth a redirect as the cultural impact of this "phenomenon" is questionable at this time (I actually think the article for AlDub itself could either be nominated for deletion or merged to the articles on Eat Bulaga and Alden Richards, but that's another story; we don't have an article for KathNiel for example). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:46, 8 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Kapoor

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

no indication of notability besides PR in Indian newspapers DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1385707/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm This appearst o be another actor with the same name, but nothing on IMDB was found for this actor, based on filmography. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. My heart skipped a beat when I saw this in AfD, as I thought it was this Anish Kapoor. Thankfully it's not. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:29, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John MacLean (Ontario politician)

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

Minimally sourced article, which still has to be treated as a WP:BLP in the absence of any properly sourced evidence to the contrary, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in a political party's leadership race and as a non-winning candidate in a general election — but neither of these is a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. To be fair, when this article was first created in 2005 we did often permit articles about non-winning leadership candidates, but consensus changed — that fact no longer gets a person into Wikipedia by itself, unless they already pass NPOL or another Wikipedia inclusion guideline for some other reason. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsuccessful candidate, fails WP:NPOL, had his ten minutes of fame back in 1967 but no discernable impact, no sources, fails GNG Kraxler (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds very WP:ONEEVENT to me. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 4 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 speedied as A7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KalyeSerye

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

No references, no indication of significance. There is already a well-written description of this show at Eat Bulaga!#Juan for All, All for Juan: Bayanihan of d' Pipol, but the creator of this article has rejected the redirect. ubiquity (talk) 17:34, 1 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. per SK1 - No actual reason has been provided, "Notability?" makes no sense here, As an aside leniency is given to articles where something is shown or built in less-developed countries, I'm gathering BEFORE wasn't followed either (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De Haan's Bus & Coach

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

Notability? Rob van vee 17:05, 1 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 speedied as G5 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J Park

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

Claim to fame is being a city planning director. No third-party reliable source coverage to indicate how individual meets WP:BIO notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: perceived Conflict of interest--OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:02, 1 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 and move to Kensri School. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KENSRI School

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

No indicator of significance of the school, no real information about the school except for its being in India. The rest of the article is all promotional and has no real information content - it just consists of what the school allegedly believes and is unsourced. Upjav (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the page's creator also created an article for Kensri School in 2008 that was speedily deleted. Upjav (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect per new evidence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)*Delete. It's only here at AfD because we can't A7 schools.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is a deplorable piece of fluffy gibberish, but the school is real, it's located in Bangalore, and has classes up to 12th grade, see here, and there's alot of coverage in the news about it, just click on the "news" link up there. Kraxler (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, if you take out all he fluffy gibberish there's nothing left but the name. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a verifiable high school per the source Kraxler found. We generally keep high schools. The current article is promotional fluff which needs to be done over. Is WP:TNT necessary? Rewriting a clean stub sounds like a viable option to me. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have reverted the article to an earlier very stubby version, before it was gutted by an IP last October, which does at least contain some of the basic information about the school. The one reference in the restored article, to the school's previous website, is now dead but seems to have been captured by the Wayback Machine, and I will see if I can use this in the article in place of the deadlink - we need more sources, but User:Kraxler has demonstrated that these exist. There are a lot of earlier (and longer) versions of the article than the one I have reverted to - of the few I looked at, none looked measurably better but someone else might have better luck. PWilkinson (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per these results, Not happy with the article at all but notability does seem to just be there!, I nearly !voted Delete as the article's been virtually blanked and I have a feeling it won't ever get improved beyond what it is now but I genuinely hope someone can prove me wrong!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 8 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) 02:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Amelia Windsor

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

Non-notable person in the line of succession to the British throne. She is so far in the line of succession that it is highly unlikely she will ever get the throne. On her own, the person in question has failed to garner any notability in her own right. Re5x (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: -- to paraphrase @Re5x, "She is so far in the line of succession ... that I will be crowned before her." LOL. Quis separabit? 14:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if it is decided Lady A is not notable enough for her own article (probably fair enough) then I think a redirect to her father's article would be preferable to a deletion. 18:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know why my signature isn't there! Opera hat (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into her father's article. As a Protestant and an heir of the Baron of Restalrig, I am almost as likely to be King of England. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:59, 9 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Junior Wrestling Championships

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

Poorly-sourced article about an amateur sporting event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because if the main article is deleted than the individual year pages would also need to go.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the nomination may be correct it is a little fast - the main article and 2015 are clearly a work in progress and they may yet have better sources added and some prose that will take it beyond a collection of stats.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTSTATS. Many of these articles look suspiciously like the work of Mauricio80.- Mr X 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly-sourced !!!

https://arena.unitedworldwrestling.org/weight-category/d1d34738-3ede-11e5-9fca-0800275a62ce http://www.foeldeak.com/wrestlingdatabase.php?language=en http://www.fila-official.com/index.php?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sport events in junior and cadet exist in wiki, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FINA_World_Junior_Swimming_Championships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_World_Junior_Championships_in_Athletics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_World_Youth_Championships_in_Athletics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_U-20_Women's_World_Cup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_U-17_World_Cup we are help toghether , expand and progress, dont delet, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 05:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They all fail GNG because the only sources are from the sponsoring organization. Lists of results are not significant coverage, especially when the sources aren't independent.Mdtemp (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable, beside that someone has to stop this user from creating articles like this, I suspect he is most probably a sock. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These articles lack significant coverage from independent sources and there's no indication that these events meet WP:NEVENT. They're simply listings of results or locations with no supporting evidence to show why they're notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen1248 what you say?notable notable notable sport events in junior and cadet exist in wiki, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FINA_World_Junior_Swimming_Championships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_World_Junior_Championships_in_Athletics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_World_Youth_Championships_in_Athletics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_U-20_Women's_World_Cup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_U-17_World_Cup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 4 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) 10:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 World Cadet Wrestling Championships

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

Poorly-sourced article about an amateur sporting event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 15:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. btw can we nominate the following articles with the same reason ?

I'll add the World Cadet Wrestling Championships without endorsing the deletion (or keeping) since there is an obvious relation between them. The Junior has its own deletion discussion where I will add the related ones.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These articles look suspiciously like the work of Mauricio80.- Mr X 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should bring it to SPI.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the nomination may be correct it is a little fast - the articles are clearly a work in progress and they may yet have better sources added and some prose that will take it beyond a collection of stats.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the article creator has seven days to add sources before the articles will be deleted. - Mr X 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - not all is lost by the early nomination - just that I would have thought a little time would have been better. My own vote will wait a few days.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello every body , help to expand and not delet , thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

   FILA Database
   Wrestling Online Results
   World Cadet Championships
   Freestyle Team Ranking
   Greco-Roman Team Ranking
   Female Team Ranking
i am add refrence  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior is not worthy Such a person does not relish expand wikipedia delet is easy and make is hard yuo help to expand and not delet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 18:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet World Championships - United World Wrestling

i am add source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The only sources for any of these articles are from the sponsoring organization, which means they fail GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT GNG? delet is easy your art is expand it and help i can delet all of wiji articles! but it isnt refer to my power! everybody add source thanks most important source in sport events related to world sport federation and need to more source isnt correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is the primary policy for determining notability on Wikipedia. It requires significant coverage from multiple sources that are deemed both reliable and independent of the subject. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These articles have no independent sources and nothing to show the events are significant enough to meet WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have independent sources

FILA Database — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarayuna (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists of results are not significant coverage and if they're from the sponsoring organization they're not independent. Fails all notability standards.Jakejr (talk) 09:55, 10 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Goodall Gallery

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

This seems to me to be an essentially promotional article about a non-notable commercial gallery. It's covered with "citation needed" and "unrefereneced" tags, most of the existing references are about the people exhibited rather than the place, so I believe WP:NOTINHERITED applies, many of the listed people shown are redlinked, and most importantly my search threw up little other than the gallery's own site or blogs. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose and I would've commented earlier but I wanted to wait to hear from others and my searches found nothing particularly good with only coverage such as this. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheLongTone's arguments. --Theredproject (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:15, 7 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 00:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anapsytics

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

Non-notable neologism. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search for this term on the web shows only this Wikipedia article as a result. A search in Google books and Google Scholar shows no hits. The entire article reads like an ad for some HR company's new improved screening process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 5 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) 10:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Craven

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

Non-notable actress. Mimi Craven had small roles in just three movies (as the article listed at the time this page was created), the most recent of which was 23 years ago. She was only married to director Wes Craven for three years, and in any event, notability is not inherited. Why someone with just three minor-role credits in 1982, 1984 and 1992 has a Wikipedia page is beyond me. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 16:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She has been in more than three movies and her most recent role was in 2002. However whether or not those roles would be the type that would give her notability is questionable. (My instinct is that they aren't, but I will do a good faith search just to make sure.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an update note above, with link, reflecting the change. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She's been in a lot of films. True, the last film was years ago but age is ok. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Error: The nominator should notify the creator of the article and give him a week to write something. This is very bad form to not do this. He may know stuff that we idiots don't. Note "we" includes me.Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say a word about that at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, so I'm not sure why the claim "procedural error" or the, in my opinion, over-the-top use of boldface. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the film roles appear to be minor. There are no reliable refs. Fails WP:GNG. The number of minor roles does not in itself confer any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wes_Craven#Personal_life, with history. I waffled between a redirect and a weak keep in this situation. That's she's known as "the ex-wife of Wes Craven" is undeniable, however we need to look at her film roles. Most of them are one off episodes and very small supporting roles, but she's had two cases where she was in a more visible position (where the films would pass notability guidelines): Mikey and Vampire Clan. This would put her at a threshold where she'd possibly pass notability guidelines, but it'd be as a very weak pass and I'd almost guarantee that she'd fail notability guidelines in the future if this is all that she's received attention for. (She is a photographer, but Craven has yet to receive any true attention for that.) In the end her roles just aren't really all that major and while she was (if I remember correctly) a visible enough character in Vampire Clan, it wasn't really a major role since she wasn't really mentioned in any reviews aside from a routine cast listing. I think that the best option here is to redirect this to the personal life section of Wes Craven's article, but with the history intact. It's possible that there may be other sourcing out there for her (although I somewhat doubt it) that never made it online, so if that does come about we can always restore the article. I just don't really see where her roles were major enough to really push her past notability guidelines and redirecting would allow us to have some mention of her somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since she's already mentioned in the Personal-life section at Wes Craven, as you note, I'm envisioning a phrase/sentence to the effect of "who had prominent roles in the films Mikey and Vampire Clan and a number of small roles in film and on television from 19xx to 19xx." Is thi what you had in mind? I'm not sure a full filmography is warranted. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As an individual by herself, she's not particularly notable. I wouldn't object at all to a redirect being made, but I don't know what content exactly should be merged, if any. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:38, 11 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 by RHaworth under G12 (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ausindex

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

No reference Aero Slicer 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More significantly, it is a WP:copyright violation from http://www.ssbcrack.com/2015/08/all-you-need-to-know-about-ausindex.html so I have tagged it for speedy deletion on those grounds. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerling (finger accessory)

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

Hardly seems notable. This has gone from one reference to zero references, as the one source that apparently made a mention is now a dead link. Even with that, it is unclear whether this is a product or merely a brand for a product. bd2412 T 13:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hardly notable, no claim of significance. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 5 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 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón H. Dovalina

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

Former president of a local community college. Notability is not encyclopedic, although locally notable. While this article has many references, the ones that pass WP:RS are local papers. The balance are passing mentions or should not be used at all (intelius, findagrave, classmates.com) Scr★pIron^IV 13:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a standard college president article. If there was one newspaper article on him, I would dismiss it, but there are lots of in-depth interviews as well as an obituary. The sources listed as not showing notability are the ones as references for facts, not for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I do not think presidents of two-year community colleges should qualify for WP:PROF#C6. And the coverage we have of him appears to be only in local media. But there's enough of it that I think he squeaks by. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP: GNG with more than seventy sources independent of the subject. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:06, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhinder

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has been prodded twice. No point in redirecting to Jat people, as an anon did recently. Sitush (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not contain any information not covered by other articles. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is and I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 5 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 00:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoka The mystery

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of student projects. I dream of horses (T) @ 11:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 11:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 11:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was about to nominate this for deletion myself. Either way, despite its claim to notability as the first animated student film produced in the Maldives, I couldn't actually find reliable coverage that confirmed this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of WP:RS. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a "student project" met our inclusion criteria, it would be welcome... but this particular one currently lacks coverage in reliable sources, and in lacking such can be seen as failing WP:NF and simply being TOO SOON. Allow it back if standards are ever met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination and as MichaelQSchmidt suggested about TOO SOON and WP:NF, the article can be created later once the project get completed and able to draw a significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's hardly much here and no signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 5 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. WP:A10 of Satish Dhawan Space Centre Second Launch Pad which is the name of the launchpad. —SpacemanSpiff 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Launch pad = SHAR (Sriharikota high altitude range)

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

Launch pads are not necessarily notable. Eat me, I'm a red bean (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No opinion as to the fundamental notability or lack thereof of launch pads in general. However, this article has a deeply defective title, essentially no content, and seems to be either duplicative of or in conflict with Satish Dhawan Space Centre Second Launch Pad, which also claims to have been the launch site for Chandrayaan-1 (given that it has references, I know which article I'd side with...). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NO VOTE: Just to let you all know this AFD is seriously malformatted and needs to be fixed. Quis separabit? 14:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The equal sign in the article title was breaking the {{la}} template that creates the header. I've escaped the equal sign, making the template happier. Nothing else is broken, I don't think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 4 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Albert Clark

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

I am not sure if this article meets GNG. A Google search found a few mentions, but they may not be sufficient to establish notability. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 11:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy (if the editor wishes). There are two articles, this one and Albert Clark (artist) created by the same editor, both with information only from a single gallery and no other references. Presuming that the editor is new, these should instead go through the AfC process. Therefore, if the editor agrees, these should be userfied while they work through the learning process of creating an article. If the editor does not agree (or does not respond), these should be deleted. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Simultaneously created Duplicate of an article on Albert Clark (artist) by a SPA. Only real ref is the commercial gallery that carries his paintings. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 4 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Madcap

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

I'm not entirely sure if this play is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this musical is not super important, but it originates the text used by Malcolm McLaren on his album Waltz Darling. I've not found anywhere that information, and it seems interesting. Ingene (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the article. This work was not in the Florodora league (another Rubens show) but collectively our series on Edwardian musical comedies, both major and minor, constitutes an important body of encyclopaedic knowledge. The creators of this piece are all highly notable in their fields, and in my view any work by them is ipso facto notable. Tim riley talk 12:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This musical ran for 354 performances in London's West End, then toured in Britain and also had Broadway and Australian productions. 354 performances was an unusually long run for the day, and the musical was one of the most successful of the 1904-1905 season. The composer, authors of the book, and lyricists were all notable, and several of the cast members were notable stars of the day. This musical is obviously notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per the rationale and improvements to the article by Ssilvers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ther are enough references in the reliable sources to justify its inclusion (the Google Books references are enough to convince me, but there are others). - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the recent improvements and the reasons cited above. Jack1956 (talk) 12:02, 3 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danang Pradana Dieva

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

No real sources about them found, fails WP:NMUSIC. PROD removed from an IP with no explanation. Mdann52 (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was a runner-up in a singing competition. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is borderline promotional and even if he was notable in his own right it would probably be a better idea to start over. It doesn't help that the singing competition he was a part of doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. If there was more coverage about his career after the competition maybe he could have had a separate article, but as it stands, he does not have notability outside of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 8 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 00:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devyal caste

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

I simply could not find any mentions of this caste anywhere online. I even suspect that it's a hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came across this page earlier and I have no idea what it is going on about, other than the fact that it is a caste. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 09:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously because it is WP:OR. Neither is it a notable topic nor does it cite any reference at all. ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 09:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After several online searches, I see it might be a real name. However, it's rare and not notable, and almost certainly not its own caste. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 4 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn R. (Lynn) McDonald

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

I'm not sure if this can be improved as my searches found no good results with this and this being the best results. It also seems there's no good move target aside from her son's article Ben Wikler. It seems several of the editors aren't very active aside from DGG (which removed the speedy and I know this subject interests him) and also notifying author Paulbaker55. Summarily, there's simply nothing to suggest improvement and nothing to suggest FAST is notable enough for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significant enough Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of her contributions to education. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a lot of information about significant contributions. FAST is extremely important and cited quite a lot in both educational and social-work journals and books...and I've only just gotten started. It's late for me here, so I'll see what I can turn up tomorrow, but I think I've shown a good start on my edits to the page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why was this even nominated? Clearly she meets GNG. She invented a program that "is implemented in over 2000 schools in 14 countries, including in 49 states in the US". What earthly difference does it make if the editors aren't active? No one owns the article, and notability by definition is neither derived from anyone else nor fleeting. If you don't understand what notability is, please stop nominating articles for deletion. If you are too lazy to improve them, at least just tag them for improvement. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 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 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article now documents contributions that appear to pass WP:PROF#C7. Striking my earlier comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — WP:PROF#C7 is now satisfied by new sources; thanks to Megalibrarygirl for doing the legwork. Toffanin (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear indicia of GNG, third-party sources and article improvement. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:35, 10 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

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

This may be notable but I'm not entirely sure as my searches found nothing outstandingly good here, here, here, here and here. Pinging the only still active user and probably interested editor Comatmebro. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks third-party coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appreciate the ping - feel free to remove. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:06, 1 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

Purohit-Blaivas Staging System

Speedy deleted without prejudice per - Orangemoody long term abuse Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources for it on pubmed. Also written by a sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Part of the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody case; the article was written by a sock of that cluster. The only source on Google predating the page that I can find is here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 1 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaquel Pitts

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

WP:GNG. Looks more like an advert than an article about an encyclopedic subject. Googling shows references on Twitter, Youtube etc, but not much else. DexDor^(talk) 05:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not significant enough Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, and not even effectively so. Person is aspiring motivational speaker making much use of social media. Same bio/PR found at dozens of sites with a quick search. LaMona (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Fuchs

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

I'm not sure the combination of oldest living Catholic priest in Europe, second oldest German man and one of the last WWI veterans is a combination that makes someone notable. There is a VIAF identifier which I don't think changes things and it seems like the German version refers to other people. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Need more info "Oldest living priest in Europe ... Germany's second-oldest man ... one of the last German First World War veterans." None of this equals notability. However, in general anyone with a full obit in the NYT is presumed notable -- is there any similar presumption for a Telegraph obit (which has just been added)? Apologies for my ignorance of British newspapers, pinging Martinevans123 for advice. EEng (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said, PINGING Martinevans123 FOR ADVICE. EEng (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read a newspaper once, but it was on a Friday. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note - fixed the two dead links to german sources, and added telegraph UK obit. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added info from obit in Sunday Independent (Ireland). He was clearly a thing in the years when he was the "oldest living." I'm not saying that being the "oldest living" makes you WP:NOTABLE, but, rather, that if enough major newspapers write obits, that coverage of your life makes you WP:NOTABLE. We assess the evidence of notability according to the metric of stuff like obits in major national dailies. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Karl Fuchs (priest) and translate/import the German DAB 1 and its daughter pages--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with E.M.Gregory. (But who exactly was Georg Ganswein)?? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinevans123, since you asked, Georg Gänswein is a prince of the Church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It helps that he's now linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's analysis. Cavarrone 08:02, 4 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. Krakatoa Katie 13:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The One Tax Plan

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

No external references to plan spearheaded by organization also with no external references. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More detail and external references added. I will have to scan the original article and add it as a PDF. Can't find electronic version of the Paper from Oct 2008 but have the hard copy. I appreciate the feedback and can add more detail and references if needed. I believe that this should be a Tax-stub so that was added as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnJLund (talk • contribs) 03:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks, I appreciate the information...makes sense. Lynn B. Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.168.139 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (draft & userfy if needed) as unless it can be improved, there's nothing to improve this interesting yet insufficiently sourced article and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 25 August 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) 03:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @Westroopnerd. Can always be resubmitted. Quis separabit? 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article wants to be on Wikipedia; this article needs to be on Wikipedia; unfortunately, this article does not meet WP:GNG. I searched, and there just simply is not enough coverage to show that it meets the notability criteria, as interesting a concept as it is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:25, 9 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago rugby club

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

This team is not important, no sources are provided, and the article is one sentence long. Charlie the Pig (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy delete even. No claim of notability.--Savonneux (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 25 August 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) 03:32, 1 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kasun Hewage

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

The subject is an Associate Professor. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A series of general references provided which mention the subject in passing but do not establish notability.Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 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 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not notable. ABF99 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 August 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) 03:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No claim to notability and fails GNG. -- Shudde ^talk 04:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not significantly notable. And per above rationales. -- Chamith (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article presents no evidence of notability and his citation record is not strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 7 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) 02:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Scottish Public Affairs

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

Non-notable group with zero evidence of good coverage with the best results from my searches here and here. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am finding passing mention of this group in articles relating to the regulation of lobbyists (a 1999 lecture, 2001 article in The Sunday Herald (via Highbeam, subscription reqd.), 2003 book, 2014 article in The Scotsman), but none of these rises to the substantial coverage of the group itself needed for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 August 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) 03:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm finding exactly the same stuf as AllyD. Nothing to denote notability in any of the searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:17, 9 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. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshman Galagedara

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

The subject is an Associate Professor. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A series of general references provided which mention the subject in passing but do not establish notability.Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no reliable secondary sources to indicate notability. ABF99 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 August 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) 03:31, 1 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. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishka Marasinghe

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

The subject is an Associate Professor. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A series of general references provided which mention the subject in passing but do not establish notability.Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Found no independent sources that could establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 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) 03:31, 1 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 00:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Harris (wide receiver)

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not seeing anything beyond routine coverage (signings, stats, etc.). Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:NGRIDIRON. ~ Rob^Talk 13:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cbl62. Definitely passes GNG, not sure why routine coverage was popping up over profiles when I searched. ~ Rob^Talk 13:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was Texas' leading receiver in 2014 with > 1,000 receiving yards and received significant coverage in major media outlets based on his college career. See, e.g., (1) this profile and (2) this one, both from ESPN.com, (3) this one from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (4) this one from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, (5) this one from KVUE television in Austin, (6) this from CBS Sports, (7) this from NBC Sports, (8) this from The Dallas Morning News, (9)-(10) this and this (behind paywall) from the Austin American-Statesman, and (11) this from SB Nation. There's enough to satisfy WP:GNG IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easy GNG decision based on the significant coverage linked by Cbl62 above (thank you for dong all the work), in particular the articles/columns on ESPN, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, CBS News and Austin American-Statesman. The SB Nation coverage I discount almost entirely, and the NBC News coverage is routine in character. That said, I would suggest that @Joeykai: withdraw this nomination so we can move on to closer calls than this one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's excellent research & sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 2 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 Speciality (album). I don't usually close AFDs I !vote in but there's absolutely no point dragging this on for the next entire week, Overall consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuary (Nami Tamaki song)

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was not in the article (so this is a good-faith nom), but the song charted for five weeks, reaching #12. I've added that to the article, with reference. TJRC (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speciality (album). All the singles related to that one can be housed there where the album reached number one, and has a greater chance of getting background information on the single. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speciality (album) per Angus - I'm not entirely sure whether charting on Oricon is all that notable ?, But either way considering it's a 2006 song it's had plenty of time to be improved so meh makes sense to redirect ,–Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speciality (album). Given the total absence of any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, the article fails the notability criteria outlined at WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 03:04, 1 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. MER-C 07:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Beck

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

Long-time troubled article from January 2007 with no significant improvement since and my searches found nothing better than indie blogs with browser searches. IMDb claims she's won a few awards but I'm seeing anything to weigh that. Pinging the only still active tagger and therefore presumably interested Mandarax. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has published ebooks, although not with major publishers. Her Amazon.com bio [19] reads a lot like the Wikipedia page. But until some reliable media outlets about her up (or she wins the Man Booker prize) this should be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PEOPLE. checking Worldcat, the majority of her books are held at the Library and Archives Canada only. have been unable to find any reliable reviews of her works. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database as well, and found exactly zero coverage there either (unless she was a teenager in Saskatoon who failed her driver's license test in 2005 — which I don't think she was, since she'd supposedly published 11 books by the time this article was created in 2007.) Bearcat (talk) 07:52, 3 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McMaster (songwriter)

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

Provided sources are insufficient, sheetmusic.com, discogs, youtube do not show how this artist meets WP:MUSIC. A redirect to the band page might be more appropriate but even then I'm not sure this is anyone more important then a competent professional. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the wiki article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_sheet_music_sources, was used for referencing the sheet music at sheetmusic.com. Also, references for the actual printed sheet music were included for the two UK top 20 songs for which McMaster was both the sole composer and lyricist, which would appear to satisfy the general notability criteria when allied with his other writing credits with Ducks Deluxe, James Dewar and Anita Harris. The Discogs references were included as they show actual pictures of the vinyl labels, which show the songwriter's name and confirm the printed info about the writer provided by Discogs. The sole YouTube reference is only used to verify McMaster's first single, which if considered a weak reference could certainly be removed. Genspeak (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that was a proposal and not a passed guideline? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, it still is a proposal but the talk consensus does seem to favour it. Genspeak (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for full disclosure, I'm the editor who approved this article for the mainspace through the AfC process. WP:COMPOSER states as its first criteria: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." McMasters has at least 2 works which meet this criteria, "Airport" and "Dancing the Night Away". And there are two others who might be notable: "Forget About You" and "Tenement Steps". Discogs establishes his relationship to two of the notable songs, and BMI is pretty authoritative. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets the criteria for WP:COMPOSER, and as Onel5969 said, he has written two if not four notable songs.JSFarman (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - a notable artist with multiple charting songs written. Well referenced article. Andrew McMaster (songwriter) seems too limiting to me as he was a member of the Motors. The naming policies of Wikipedia would favour the known name Andy McMaster rather than the birth name Andrew McMaster. I would suggest change to Andy noting that Andy McMaster (musician) instead which is now a redirect and can be used for main article for the artist. werldwayd (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasons outlined by Onel5969. I also agree with the suggestion made by werldwayd for changing the name of the article. And here is a Rolling Stone reference to support this: 20 Rock Albums Rolling Stone Loved in the 1970s That You Never Heard. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:15, 5 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) Kraxler (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarrukmo Plaza

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

Disputed PROD on a mall because of size. Can't find any reliable sources(fails WP:GNG). The official site[20] indicates a different size than the article of only 45,000 m2. Me5000 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable shopping mall. Quis separabit? 22:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 286 sources in Kompas, 70 in Tempo, 782 via the Tribun network, and 179 references in Kedaulatan Rakyat. Not to mention however many sources in other newspapers. There are plenty of sources discussing the mall, assuming one wants to read and parse them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Chris Woodrich. This is a giant mall which is well over twice the size of our usual 500,000 sq ft cutoff. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:21, 4 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 Voice of the Heart. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now (The Carpenters song)

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Voice of the Heart where the single is also discussed. This is part of a collection and Wikipedia has a complete book on The Carpenters, so keeping a redirect is important here. This was a very significant group, handle with care. I looked around for references, but it is impossible to search for the term "Now". --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Voice of the Heart and make this a redirect. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose a merge. Arguably, it's notable as Karen's last single she recorded. If only Mama Cass had given her sandwich to Karen Carpenter ... they both might still be alive today. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 4 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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkcyprus

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

Internet forum that lacks notability or indications of importance. It seems it shut down between the article's creation date and today. TheGGoose (talk) 18:36, 25 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - site is no longer online and domains has been purchased by a Japanese company. There are no references in the article and I could fine none via search. Fails GNG and WP:WEB. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:16, 3 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, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:49, 11 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) 15:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of American and Canadian cities by minor professional sports franchises

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

1)It was created years ago by an account that has not been active since 2012.
2)A better page with more guidelines has been created at List of minor sports teams in the United States by city and is actually listed by the census metro areas it is linked to (i.e., San Jose is part of the San Francisco Bay Area on the official census).
3)Is named US and Canada, yet there are no Canadian cities listed.
4)The page is very outdated and does not specify how minor a minor league team should be (there are at least 100 minor league baseball teams if you count AZ leagues and college summer leagues and independent leagues).
5)It has been orphaned since its creation with no attempts at integration, the above mentioned page has been created since then and is slightly better (only a bit). Yosemiter (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. For the United States, it simply duplicates another list that already exists — and it completely fails to actually contain any Canadian-related content at all, so there's no Canadian-based reason to keep it either. If there's a desire for a similar Canadian list, that should be started as a separate list rather than trying to weld it into a merged Canada+US one. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 6 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, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant and misleading. Don't lump us Canucks with them damn Yankees. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 9 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 Galactus. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herald of Galactus

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

We already have specific articles for those characters. The cronology and nature of their work with Galactus can be simply described in that article, Galactus. Note that this isn't an actual supergroup but a role of a character. It's like having an article "leader of the Avengers" or "Captain of the USS Enterprise" Cambalachero (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. The page was originally created to list the full details of the entire group, it's known membership, and the group's appearance in different media appearance. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back into Galactus where it was for a couple of years. BOZ (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Galactus - Pretty much the whole page is in-universe, including the Publication History section. The little bit that's real world content (other media appearances) is reproduced on the individual character pages. Furthermore, the only real-world content worth including on the Heralds (the creation of the Silver Surfer character) is already found in the Galactus and Silver Surfer articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 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 per WP:G5. (article deleted by Sphilbrick (Talk)) Ashenai (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives

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

Delete per WP:G5. Creator is sock of indeffed user Kbabej. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (added tag accordingly). WP:G5 is a speedy deletion criterion, and only very minor edits were added by other users. --Ashenai (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what protocol is, but this appears to be a valid disambiguation page, regardless of who created it. If deleted it would have to be recreated in substantially the same form. That seems a bit silly. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 1 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. Will userfy for an established editor in good standing for the purposes of restoration. Swarm ♠ 03:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives (website)

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

Delete per WP:G5 -- creator is a sock account of indeffed user Kbabej. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question of the blocked article creator does not mean that the article/topic fails notability. My problem with the article is that this new article is purportedly about "an American conservative political website", but the handful of reliable, secondary sources in the article are about a couple of rap songs produced by the two prep school boys who started the website, (the videos are apparently hosted on the website). The website may be notable, I have not idea. If some young conservative or Good Samaritan finds reliable secondary sources supporting notability as a "conservative political website" flag me. Because I can imagine a WP:HEYYMAN situation here. It's just, I'm not seeing one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. It was created by a blocked editor, yes, but it's notable. The references convince me. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Looks like the user/(possibly IP?) has been blocked. With an Alexa rank that high, I think it improves WP and should have coverage. Can someone watch it for IP/sockpuppetry vandalism? --Cagepanes (talk) 16:44, 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 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G5. That speedy criterion is independent of the article's notability by the way. But even if it was not: the article is thinly sourced, with most references barely mentioning the website or its activities (besides criticizing their rapping), and filled with trivial dorm information and staff listings. Not even the most basic information about positive and negative feedback for their video (2nd paragraph in "history") is sufficiently sourced. GermanJoe (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Added content and 10 sources. Pinging E.M.Gregory for reevaluation. I think we'd be doing a disservice to WP to remove a website with such a high Alexa ranking, even though it was from a (rightfully blocked) socker. Did some ref searches to flesh those out a bit, and none of the new sources are about the song/rapping. --Cagepanes (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cagepanes, you may well be correct. The sources, however, still seem to be websites and blogs. Wonkette appears to be an edited publication. "The College Fix" is also edited, (and can probably support a Wikipedia article.) Are any of the others edited? (The Dartmouth ones are, but they are closely related to the topic.) Which of the sources are reliable and secondary?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::Not including articles about the song/rapping: Yahoo, Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy, author Scot McKnight, The College Fix, and multiple Dartmouth Review articles. If you include their rapping (which is still about the organization and how they got their start), there's also: FOX News, Huffington Post, Wonkette, ESPN, and others. While some may be blogs, the sources show that this website is well trafficked and referenced in a lot of conservative media, starting in 2009 and continuing now. --Cagepanes (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC) ::::I also just added another source from the Huffington Post where they mention Young Conservatives and talk about YC's writer Derryk Green responding to Sally Kohn. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough. Steel Wool Killer / Lanolжeð Renforsdfer Tyklovon (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G5 and GermanJoe. Not referenced that well and should be deleted. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:42, 17 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) 10:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mónica Hernández

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

Non notable judoka. Has never competed at a world championship or Olympics, lost her only 2 matches at the Pan-Am Games, and is currently ranked only 67th[21]. She also lacks the significant coverage required by GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she didn't qualify for the Pan-Am games. The results you mentioned are from this year's Pam Am championships (which had only 7 competitors in her division). It's easy to get those two confused. Papaursa (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think her inability to qualify for the Pan-Am games, world championships, or Olympics explains her ranking. An article in the local paper is not enough to show she meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Did not compete at the highest level. The 67th ranking is telling.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG with significant coverage here, here, and here. Vrac (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. And while the Central American and Caribbean Games may be her most important competition to date, it garners significant coverage in the region, as it is the third most important multi-sport event for the participating countries after the Olympics and the Pan American Games. With that said, I would've normally agreed to her deletion had she simply just competed and nothing more, but she obtained a couple of medals. And by the way, she did qualify for the Pan American Games this year in Toronto, but a last minute injury prevented her from attending. It is explained here. Just saying. -- Lancini87 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much coverage an event obtains has nothing to do with a particular athlete. Winning medals is nice but again it depends on the value - if all those medal wins got her was a ranking in the 60s they are not that significant.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning medals (even gold ones) at continental championships has been shown to not grant automatic notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morteza Rezaei Ghaleh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruebyn Richards) so winning a medal at regional events is certainly not enough. Local coverage of her participating in events and an article saying she's injured and won't compete do not qualify as significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Voz de Michoacán and el Cambio de Michoacán are news outlets for a state with a population of about 4.5 million, that's not local coverage. Vrac (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both outlets are based in Morelia which is Hernandez's home town. That seems like the epitome of local coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Morelia is the capital of Michoacán, of course the major news outlets for the state are based there. And it's not a town, it's a rather large city. Vrac (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never competed at the highest level which is the starting point for WP:NSPORTS. Also fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG since the only coverage is routine sports reporting saying she'll be competing in events that aren't even the highest level. Winning a state award doesn't meet any notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Searches provided nothing to suggest otherwise. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:28, 9 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 00:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany K. Scanlon

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources, just links to her profile pages on Amazon and LibraryThing. No suggestion that Scanlon meets any criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. McGeddon (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable writer. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 18:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm usually pretty good at sourcing minor writers to minor publications, but I'm coming up empty with this one. Seems to be another familiar type: a writer who somebody likes enough to promote on Wikipedia. But, no sources = no page. Feel free to flag me is anyone finds some reliable sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 3 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) 02:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalle Sauerland

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

Subject was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nisse Sauerland. The coverage is not enough to meet GNG. It consists of passing mentions and him promoting his fighters. Notability is not obtained simply by doing your job, even if it's relatively high profile.Mdtemp (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: previously deleted and recreated without significant improvement to establish notability. Quis separabit? 18:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I don't consider this and this as "passing mentions". Other sources include this, this and this (as well as this one in Polish), which I admit are minor but do indicate a trend that he is notable in his field of work, apart from passing WP:GNG. The previous AfD discussion referred to above actually pertains to his brother's article. In any case, I was convinced I improved upon the previous article by including more substantial referencing, which I feel is being ignored this time around. Thank you, CesareAngelotti (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He, along with his father, was discussed at the previous AfD. The father is notable, the kids were not. Even the article you cite doesn't really mention him until near the end--after general discussions of boxing and his father's accomplishments. The only coverage coverage seems to be about the Super Six tournament which involved 6 promoters and an agreement between his father's company and Showtime. At most that's WP:BLP1E or merits a redirect to his father's page.Mdtemp (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No question he's a boxing promoter and gets coverage for doing his job, but it's primarily passing mentions. I don't think the sources provided are enough to show he meets WP:GNG. I also don't see that his notability has changed much since the article was deleted in April. Papaursa (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and no obvious change in notability since article was first deleted. Jakejr (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He exists. He is a boxing promoter. But other than that, searches showed nothing which shows that he comes to the standard of the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:29, 9 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kuhr

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

None of the kickboxing claims have sources and I was not able to find independent sources to confirm them. If he was champion of all those professional organizations, he's definitely notable as a kickboxer. The other sources appear to be more passing mentions because his agency was involved in the investigation of the poker tournament robbery.Mdtemp (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only snippet view is available, but this German-language book from 1992 (some kind of "year in review" type of publication by the official government archive of Berlin) refers to Kuhr defending a kickboxing title against a fighter named Bogdan Sawicki in that city that year. These two German-language periodicals (Zitty and Focus) also appear to refer to him as a kickboxing champion, though again, only snippet view is available. I can't verify those specific titles, but he does seem to be a notable figure, who's receiving significant coverage in German-language sources in his role as a celebrity bodyguard Die Welt, B.Z., Klatsch & Tratsch, etc. As such, I'd lean toward Keep. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the source doesn't say what organization's title he won. There are dozens of small organizations whose titles do not confer notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a source to the article supporting the claim he won significant pro kickboxing titles. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he passes NSPORT and GNG, W.A.K.O. European Championships 1986 lists him as European champion; here is Kuhr on the cover of a German magazine as world champion (Kicksider, March 1993), he has been running a security service, see Ehemaliger Kick-Box-Weltmeister bewacht Zoo und Tierpark (Former Kick-Box World Champion Runs Zoo Security) in Berliner Morgenpost (January 5, 2015); he also worked as bodyguard for celebrities, keeping him in the public eye a bit. Kraxler (talk) 01:34, 4 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 20:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nusrat Faria Mazhar

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

WP:TOOSOON. Acted in some commercials and signed in the MoU for two films which have not been released yet. Most of the sources are not reliable, some are WP:INTERVIEWs and some just passing mentions. Arr4 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete for now as, although I can't speak well here with the non-English sources, my own and searches and looking at the currently listed give no impression of better notability so we'll wait for it to happen (there's also no move target). SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Full disclosure: when this went through AfD three months ago I edited the article in an attempt to improve it. The discussion was closed as keep before I reached an opinion on the AfD). Although SwisterTwister is of a different mind this time, I find that the old arguments by Northamerica1000 and Wikimandia that it meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are still persuasive. Worldbruce (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous arguments —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:39, 1 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) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Center (Brooklyn)

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

Non notable mall fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable shopping mall. Quis separabit? 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is really marginal. If somebody wants to go to the hassle of trying to save it, I'd help. For what it's worth, I've been by this mall but never shopped there. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a good New York Times article [28] that goes into a lot of detail on the development of this mall. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 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 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist doesn't hurt. Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage I could find other than that NYT article, were mentions in news articles, e.g. "shooting near mall", development near mall, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one swallow doeth not make summer, one NYT articles can not establish notability in the total absence of any other coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 23:03, 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 Deleted (A7) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewater Commons

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

Non notable mall fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable shopping strip mall (I've been there). Quis separabit? 01:06, 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, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator.New Media Theorist (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found some mentions but not enough for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 13 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. All "keep" opinions are by socks or by otherwise not established editors (i.e., possible socks). These opinions are therefore discounted. Sandstein 09:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of death

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

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

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

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

Same concerns apply as the recent decision to delete List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth, namely cruftiness and OR. Chrism would like to hear from you 13:41, 25 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the arguments put forward in the previous debate. Listcruft. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Definitely "not" WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Boy Named Stu (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~~ User:Boy Named Stu is the creator of this list. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Comment So I see that you don't contest the claim that this is listcruft... --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment It isn't listcruft. Boy Named Stu (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep, doesn't seem like cruft to me, either. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Once again my argument is the same in this as it is the other debates on British PMs. Highly notable topics do not qualify as WP:LISTCRUFT. Halftime Hero (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I think a pertinent question here is: Do we really need List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of death, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth (AfD closed as redirect), List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age (AfD closed as keep) and Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (AfD closed as no consensus) on top of Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom? I don't think that juggling the same few personages around in neverending permutations is of any use. Kraxler (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are endless articles of the same statistics on Presidents of the United States. Articles such as these should definitely be reserved for the highest offices e.g. Presidents of the United States, Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, etc. These ones just summarize the statistics of each of the respective topics on British PMs more clearly and more concisely than List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. There should definitely be more articles like these on world leaders in more countries of the world. Every country in the world, (particularly a well established democracy like Britain) should have similar articles like these. Boy Named Stu (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No country in the world should have similar collections of trivia. As for the US articles: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All high offices of the world deserve similar summaries of statistics like the US articles: WP:POLITICIANS, WP:NOTABILITY. Especially all of the well established ones. I can fully understand why the newer countries wouldn't have them, but in a country that's even older than the US it certainly warrants them. I think I'll leave it at that. Boy Named Stu (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These lists are sortable. If we have one article like this with all significant dates in columns (birth; death; assumed office; left office), the user can sort as he or she pleases. --Slashme (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we only had one article with all of the relevant dates it'd still be one very long article. This one sums up the summary of the deaths of British PMs perfectly, and more importantly, it keeps it brief, which certainly wouldn't be the case if we had everything on one article. My decision for "keep" still stands. Halftime Hero (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Seems like a highly worthy article to me. I wish there was articles similar to this on Australian PMs. Yawnfully Yellow (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've blocked a few socks, and semi-protected this. Boy named Stu, Halftime hero, and Yawnfully Yellow are all socks. Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Content from blocked socks above has been struck, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NOTABILITY I can't see any reason for deleting it. I also reckon his article has to exist in it's own right as opposed to merging it with List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. ...And Five (talk) 11:45, 14 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. Overall consensus is to Keep for now, If sources don't improve then I guess Merging would the next best option but we'll see how it goes (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As If (album)

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

Not released until October - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify article now - WP:TOOSOON ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep. This early interview from the magazine Spin is majorly about the album, and a lot of reviews from independent sources should be published once the LP is released. 和DITOR E tails

Keep. Enough coverage already to keep it at least for 6 or 7 weeks until it has been released. In addition to the SPIN article above there's FACT, DIY, Pitchfork, Glasswerk. If it didn't get any more coverage than that when it's released, then we would possibly be looking at a merge to the band, but let's face it, that isn't going to happen. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 1 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) Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Satya

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

Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability, GNG. Quis separabit? 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep demonstrably meets both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER, specifically point one of the latter, which says: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." According to this source, which he is the subject of, he has played the lead in four tv serials. He gets a feature piece here in The Hindu, which covers WP:GNG. This source mentions him getting best actor at the Asianet awards. This source mentions him as one of the co-stars in another serial. Other mentions in passing like this suggest someone who's notable and I strongly suspect that there would be more in foreign language sources. Valenciano (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be locally quite prominent, and the facts of the article are at least verifiable. --Slashme (talk) 23:34, 6 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, 8 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 Impossible Princess by creator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (Kylie Minogue song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS totally. No independent coverage in third party reliable sources, no chart performance, no independent live coverage, performances, academic discussions etc. All that is present in the name of third party sources are the some reviews of album, and a bunch of CD single and 7" single liner notes. This should be deleted or at best as a plausible redirect to the album article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete B-side. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough information and reliable sources discussing the song that probably wouldn't all fit on the album article. Also, I doubt reasoning of "no chart performance" is a good-enough reason for an article to be deleted. Other alternatives would be to redirect or merge to the album article. 和DITOR E tails 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Impossible Princess, concur that it fails WP:NSONGS. Discussion in sources is generally limited to a brief mention in larger pieces that are about the album as a whole. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per nom. Fails NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this page, I will be redirecting it to the parent album. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Impossible Princess by creator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jump (Kylie Minogue song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS totally. No independent coverage in third party reliable sources, no chart performance, no independent live coverage, performances, academic discussions etc. This should be deleted or at best as a plausible redirect to the album article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this page, I will be redirecting it to the parent album. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Impossible Princess by creator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Need Anyone

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

Fails WP:NSONGS totally. No independent coverage in third party reliable sources, no chart performance, no independent live coverage, performances, academic discussions etc. Also there are original research claims in the article about the song being a promotional single. This should be deleted or at best as a plausible redirect to the album article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to Impossible Princess given that the song doesn't seem to have notability outside of the context of the parent album CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this page, I will be Redirecting this page to the parent album. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too Far (Kylie Minogue song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS totally. No independent coverage in third party reliable sources, no chart performance, no independent live coverage, performances, academic discussions etc. This should be deleted or at best as a plausible redirect to the album article. Another point, even most of the content regarding the background corresponds to the album article only. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appearing on multiple Kylie Greatest Hits albums, being almost a single but pulled at the last minute and featuring coverage in reliable sources (although not all the ones currently in the article are, citing the sleeve notes of the Impossible Princess is fine, unless you somehow believe they were made up and full of untruths) is good enough for me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 1 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. As no more comments seem to be forthcoming, I am closing this as no consensus, without prejudice to taking this to AfD again if the article doesn't improve over the next month or so. Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive coordinate descent

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

Non-notable. The main paper about this method has been cited a mere 13 times according to GScholar. The content of the article was previously removed from the article Coordinate descent because it was deemed promotional.

PROD contested by an anonymous editor. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the method and article. My comment was: "The article explains the concept of performing coordinate descent with an adaptive coordinate system with support of a few illustrations. Citations index is a weak argument. It would be better to extend the description of old and new relevant approaches." I would be glad to know your arguments to support article deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.22.235 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The academic article or the wikipedia article?--Savonneux (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Pavlov paper describes the method in reasonable depth [29] and is independent of what the nominator calls "the main paper" as far as I know. It would just scrape through the notability requirement on that alone, but I note that Pavlov predates (2006) "the main paper" (2011) so that is clearly not the original source of the method, hence is likely independent of the original source also, and hence also counts towards notability. I also note that there are several mentions in gbooks results and that a paper by Tasadduq et al. describes the method as "well-known". Having said that, it is a truly awful encyclopaedia article as it completely fails to give any context to the general reader of what the article is actually about. However, such failings are not grounds for deletion here. SpinningSpark 11:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spinningspark: Pavlov's Algorithm 1 and Loshchilov's Algorithm 3 look entirely different, solve different problems, and Loshchilov doesn't cite Pavlov at all. These appear to be distinct algorithms that just happen to have the same name. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't pretend to understand this material, but to my mind any algorithm that repeatedly changes coordinates in order to converge on a desired result can sensibly be called adaptive coordinate descent. It does not matter that an entirely different algorithm is being used to solve an entirely different problem. The article currently makes no coherent attempt to define its own scope. Until it does, I think I am entitled to assume the widest scope possible. That combined with several book sources and papers (Theodoridis, Glasmachers and Dogan. Hlupic, Tasadduq et al.) directly referencing Loshchilov in the context of adaptive coordinate descent scrapes it through notability for me. SpinningSpark 15:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest? Original research? - must be provided on the talk page of the article. The article can still remain part of the encyclopedia if it is written from a neutral point of view but no one can promote their own research by creating an article about it.

Comment - the article creator's username implies a close connection to this topic and article. His/her edit history suggests that the creation of the account may have been for the purpose of creating this article.

Bfpage |leave a message 20:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krakatoa Katie 13:30, 10 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abordo

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

No assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines and WP:NALBUM. Jbh ^Talk 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely no assertion of notability. The album sold "several copies" according to the article, and the only two references are links to two other bands' websites! --Slashme (talk) 23:29, 6 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) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umeka Shōji

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

Non-notable voice actor. Only found one news article announcing her role in World Trigger and it was for some supporting characters. She is also supposedly a singer but none of her works have been listed on her Oricon profile. Too soon to have a Wikipedia article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ja.wp lists her as one of voice actors (multiple VAs because customizable differences, it appears) for the main playable character in God Eater 1, Burst and 2, and Samurai Warriors: Chronicles, and they also regard her roles in Deception IV: Blood Ties and Tokimeki Memorial 4 as major characters. That should pass WP:ENT if backed up by sources, but I am not !voting because I do not have access to sources. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I've confirmed Deception IV and Tokimeki Memorial 4 from their websites. The God Eater ones I'm not sure since they have like 10 different voices for the main character. And Samurai Warriors is a massive ensemble cast which makes it difficult to figure out. Based on the Deception IV and Tokimeki Memorial 4, is that good enough to pass WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed Samurai Warriors ensemble roles. Takenaka Hanbei looks like a major character for Samurai Warriors 3 at least by newly introduced characters (still 40 of them total, but she voices 2 of the newer ones). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Japan is better than the US about covering voice actors, but it's still possible for someone to voice some major characters without actually gaining a ton of coverage. The big thing we should be looking at are the roles: were they major characters in a notable game/film/show? If it's a show, how many episodes were they in? If these are major characters or characters with a lot of screen time, then that'd be something to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Game Plaza Haruka's Voice actor database shows her in a bunch of media. Is that enough to show she is notable? [30] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep Im seeing sources brought forward that indicate that the person just by a hair passes WP:ENT. More sources need to be added to the article though regarding her roles per WP:BLP, anything un-sourced should be removed (The ANN encyclopedia is NOT a WP:RS). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the un-sourced entries to the article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 3 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 Frankenstein Conquers the World. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla vs. Frankenstein

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

The film never materialized beyond a concept. Fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep in some manner. Perhaps merge and redirect somewhere. I am finding through searches that, even if never made, the topic of this abandoned film has the level of commentary and analysis to meet our basic inclusion criteria, but I am in quandary as to whether or not it merits a separate article or of we should be discussing just where else and how much of this could be merged somewhere for a redirect. I am thinking it could be spoken of in detail at Godzilla (franchise). Thoughts? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The content should be put over into the article about Frankenstein Conquers the World, which arouse out of the development hell that the Godzilla vs. Frankenstein got mired in. I think that's the best bet. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the above two editors. I think CoffeeWithMarkets' analysis is spot on, it should go into the Frankenstein Conquers the World, into the production sections, as it's already mentioned there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 9 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MatchMove

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

WP:CORP has a couple mentions in press releases and the like, for example: [31]. The real thing though is that one cannot find any kind of WP:RS information to add to the article if one wanted to outside of a basic description of what they do (some sort of prepaid cards).

Of another note is that the article is heavily edited by:
- Matchmovepay (talk · contribs · logs)name is pretty obvious
- Cindyfrommm (talk · contribs · logs)only contributions are to this article
- Jasmineloh123 (talk · contribs · logs)only contributions are to this article
- Terrynfs (talk · contribs · logs)created the article and has exclusively contributed to it

I did remove a bunch of links to advertising for the company before nominating this, for transparencies sake. Savonneux (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant advertising created by company employees or paid editors. --Slashme (talk) 23:25, 6 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. Screw it will close and move myself otherwise we're gonna be relisting this for bloody ever! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dansk Jernbane

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

I'm not Danish so I hope we can get some insight into this possibly non-notable company that has existed since July 2006 (basically the same content) and, at best, this could be mentoned at CFL's article (the Dansk article was moved to CFL Cargo here as well). To the best of my abilities, I searched for sources and found nothing good. Notifying tagger Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois per nom - Judging by this [32] they were merged into CFL Cargo (I'm assuming the Merger happened in 2006?), Seeing as the "Dansk Jembane" DK wiki article redirects to CFL Cargo we may aswell follow suit, I did a few sources [33][34][35][36][37] but not sure if they're related (My laptop translates "Dansk Jenbane" as "Danish Railways" so all could be unrelated!). –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems this translates to Danish Railway as other articles have the word "jernbane" as well. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we're a bit fucked source wise

, Would be nice if a Danish person showed up lol. –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to CFL Cargo Denmark - Not gonna lie the whole naming thing is a tad confusing but there we go, Seems better to Move instead of merging to I guess an irrelevant article, Can't be bothered to fiddle with all the above so take this as my final answer lol. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept it should be moved to CFL Cargo Denmark, as the company got a new name in 2006/07. Same owner then and now (directly or indirecly, not totally clear to me presently): CFL, hence the name which in Danish is CFL Cargo Danmark ApS (ApS=Ltd/LLC). If you want to search for sources on the pre-2007 name include ApS and in quotes: "Dansk Jernbane ApS". Otherwise you could very well end up with a great deal of confusion with Danske Statsbaner. I'm not overly impressed with the hits we get. Leaving out the ApS "Dansk Jernbane" is challenging as you will get hits on dansk jernbane which is simply "Danish railway" and not a proper noun. I'll try to look into it later. Did this help? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the added sources, and move as suggested above. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in accordance with Sam Sailor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 11 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Moren Bromma

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

As unfortunately, my searches found no better sources with the best results here, here and here. The article may seem acceptable in a way (especially compared to other articles) but there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable individual. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 19:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrote two business books that were published by McGraw-Hill, and apparently a successful businesswoman, but does not seem to have had any major affect on the world or her area of expertise that would account for encyclopedic notability. LaMona (talk) 18:47, 1 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) 21:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narmadeeya Brahmins

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

Although this may be because sources are not accessible, I found nothing to suggest improvement to this article from July 2007 with the best results here (which has a little information but not much) and, in any case, this would be best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This topic isn't even mentioned in Brahmin, so how can it be independently notable? --Slashme (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything in the search engines to show this is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 9 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Gallardo

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

Non-notable person. She is mentioned in the cited source only once, in the appendix, which is simply a list of several hundred names that appeared in the Venona Cables. The sum total of what the source says about her is as follows: "Chilean, married to the American Lorren Hay, a Marine captain. Worked for the KGB on projects involving Chile." This is very far from the level of coverage in RS that is required to make someone notable: it is a passing mention, not significant coverage in a reliable source. I'm unable to find any other coverage of her in a reliable source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or any other relevant criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG.--Keysanger (talk) 15:03, 6 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna Rei

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

A relatively young tanka poet who has published some poems and been mentioned in a few blogs, but no significant independent RS on her. The book mentioned in the article is self-published, as is her Blue Train magazine. The text of the article itself is taken word for word from the Amazon author description [38], and thus could be a candidate for speedy deletion as advertising. I think it fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, but the poetry community in Japan is rather rarefied, so perhaps an expert opinion is necessary. Michitaro (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject to change to "neutral" if new evidence of notability comes to light. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of any third-party coverage or in-depth commentary to satisfy even the basic notability guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 03:12, 1 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Climate Economy Report

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

This article appears to be nothing more than a facsimile of the subject itself, parroting the content of each section of the document under identical section titles. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this were a notable document, which I don't think it is, there is nothing here which should be in the resulting article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: irretrievably unencyclopedic. What I mean by that is, as 67.14.236.50 said, this is essentially a re-telling of the report, not a discussion of the report. Almost nothing in this article can be salvaged. If this is a notable topic, it needs a complete re-write, and a suitable encyclopedia article about it would maybe cover a tenth of the length of this article. --Slashme (talk) 23:18, 6 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Matthes

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Wizardman 02:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 01:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pop-fly to first base as far as notability goes: Fails WP:BASEBALL/N, no evidence of meeting other notability criteria. "Yer out!" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BASEBALL/N. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 8 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) 22:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heli Attack 3

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search (Gamezone hit was a repackaged press release and the other stuff was just listings and PR). JIG review is a paragraph long and the rest are unreliable sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I note that the parent company squarecircleco doesn't even have it's own page (although maybe they could?). shoy (reactions) 18:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note of previous discussion - An AfD for Heli Attack (series) resulted in a merge into Heli Attack 3 which was deemed the only notable game. AfD discussion here. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 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, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that notability hasn't been clearly established. The links in the articles right now seem to go to unreliable sources. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches didn't turn up anything which would show the notability of this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 9 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 00:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BajeYout

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

My searches found nothing good at all and the best thing I found was this and it's worth mentioning the website is now closed so all signs seem to suggest this magazine closed (no significant edits since starting in March 2007 and it's orphaned). Notifying author CaribDigita. SwisterTwister talk 02:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 25 August 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, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We know next to nothing about this magazine, or why it's important or significant. If someone can come back later with more facts and more sources, the article can be recreated. --Slashme (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Slashme. Nothing notable came up on the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League

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

This organization is not in any way affiliated with the Vietnamese Monarchy movement. It has no sources, and was created by the same user who created the (also non-sourced) article about this organization's president Nguyễn Phúc Bửu Chánh, believed to be an impostor who sells "titles" for money. This article is only a front for that business. There's reading about it here, here, and here. Cagepanes (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the nominator, Cagepanes: If you believe the page is purely promotional, please consider adding the appropriate cleanup tags, or rewriting the article. Doing so may affect the outcome of this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added the tags just now. Good suggestion. --Cagepanes (talk) 03:39, 1 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laureen Harper

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

Not sure why there is an article on this person. Other than her marriage to Stephen Harper she meets none of the standard WP:Notability requirements. Recommend Delete or Redirect to the Stephen Harper article. Suttungr (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Canada are a class of topic for which we do have articles about every single one who has ever existed, with not a single solitary exception over the entire time since 1867, for exactly the same reasons that we have articles about every First Lady of the United States and every Second Lady of the United States, every First Spouse of the Philippines, most Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (the difficulty of digging into 200-400 year old sources, not any inherent non-notability, being the only reason they don't all already have articles), and literally hundreds upon hundreds of other Category:Spouses of national leaders. Whether you agree with it or not, spouses of national leaders are a notable topic that readers do want information about, because they do serve in a public, ceremonial and symbolic role in their own right — and for that very reason, "First Ladydom" is explicitly written right into WP:NOTINHERITED as being not subject to the usual prohibitions on "inherited notability". So the question that needs to be answered here isn't what would make her notable enough for an article, but rather what would make her uniquely non-notable among an otherwise notable class of topic, such that she would become the only wife of a Canadian Prime Minister in all of Canadian history ever to not qualify for an article. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bearcat's reasoning, which is apparently ground that has been covered before. On my own I would have said Keep it as a proper place to cover her involvement in causes and charities, to allow very brief mentions elsewhere. It allows editors of other articles to mention her appearance, say, but avoid having to footnote stuff that is documented in this article. --do ncr am 20:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Bearcat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Unless we plan on deleting the article on Michelle Obama. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:11, 6 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 19_Kids_and_Counting#Bates_family. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bates family

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

Reality TV star with little notability in his own right, perhaps only as part of his family. Not enough specific notability to warrant many external references. Westroopnerd (talk) 00:09, 18 August 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 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The linked article is on the family as a whole, not on any individual in the family. So the argument does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 19_Kids_and_Counting#Bates_family I suppose as although this AfD is not making all that much sense, it's likely they were best known for 19 Kids and Counting apart from their own show. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 19_Kids_and_Counting#Bates_family as per SwisterTwister. No stand-alone notability as a family. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 8 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 00:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Hunt (consultant)

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

Simply not notable for Wikipedia Sheroddy (talk) 22:44, 23 August 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 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Something seems to have gone wrong here - I wanted to nominate the article about Judith Hunt (consultant) for deletion, not Judith Hunt (illustrator). Could somebody please help me change this as the Cyberbot has nominated the wrong article?--Sheroddy (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheroddy: I think I've fixed it, the links now go to the correct article. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Searches found nothing that could establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 13:29, 24 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete as my searches found nothing good and it hasn't been improved since starting so there's not much to suggest further improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches on the engines turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 8 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 04:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Scharff

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

Inadequately sourced biography. The only source that I could find was this. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 01:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches turned up a handful [39] of sources [40] giving more or less the same info now on the page, in the context of what seems to be postulated atomic warfare in outer space. The best info I found about him was in page searches of "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship" on books google, according to which He was a physicist who left Livermore as part of a group of physicists then forming a new corporation, and, as of the book's pub. date, he was working for Science Applicatons International Corporation (SAIC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing good aside from minor coverage at Books, browser and Scholar. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a Danish physicist M. Scharff (died before 1961) with citation counts 1539, 1451, 565, etc. in Google scholar, which would be a pass of WP:PROF#C1. But I'm pretty sure it's a different person than the subject, because of the different national affiliation. Other than that I see no evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 7 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 Result was Keep based on the strength of the argument. I wasn't convinced merely by several citations in a low-/mid-circulation newspaper, but this particular national honor makes it almost certain that additional reliable sources exist. The strength of the arguments in the previous AFD only confirms this decision. I will move the page to Jean-Paul Cara after closing this AFD. (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Paul Cara

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as still insufficiently notable since last nomination. Quis separabit? 00:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and rename to Jean-Paul Cara): coverage: [41] [42] [43] [44]. Officier in the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres: [45]. Vrac (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 1 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 04:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Med Standard

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

Non-notable startup company recycling medical equipment. Don't be confused by the extreme number of Google hits - Google hits all kinds of "... Med standard" stuff, which has nothing to do with the company. Current sources are blogs, PR websites and a family TV channel - all of them without active URLs. GermanJoe (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On top of being created by a now blocked sock, references to very dodgy sources, fails Google test. Obviously not notable under WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's main content was added by a non-sock (SPA), and the company name is difficult to search - thus the AfD. But I agree of course: without new credible claims of notability this article should be deleted as soon as possible. 2 Goggle searches have failed so far. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to keep this here, as it is on here with questionable grounds. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 2 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zonia Mejia

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and lacks Reliable third party sources .Is a upcoming Actress a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as way too soon. Quis separabit? 23:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete instead of redirecting to the show as, although I found results such as this, this is vulnerable to BLP issues and there's not much for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article itself says: "She is best known as one of the housemates in Pinoy Big Brother: 737 the teen edition of the segment." If someone is best known for being a Pinoy Big Brother contestant, that's a clear lack of notability. --Slashme (talk) 23:03, 6 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zang Qianqian

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

Unremarkable underage athlete. Fails WP:NHSPHSATH. Not enough third party coverage to be notable. Maybe once she is gets out of the U18 league, this might change. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are on the same team; and they all fall under the same notability status:

The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notables. Similar to Wu Han deletion. --Osplace 01:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I'm not finding anything that would lead me to believe they pass WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 23:24, 5 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 08:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Herman

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

not notable, no sources to verify RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Competed at the fully professional level of his sport. Was part of a major stable in the third biggest promotion in the United States at the peak of its popularity. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice proof. No extensive coverage of any of this, mind. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i think "fully professional" is misleading. There is no amateur version unless you count backyard feds. No really notable achievements as far as i can see. MPJ -US 20:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not actually remember his time in ECW, reading through the section he won one' match, a singles match on a house show over a tag team guy. Even his PPV "participation" consisted of him being ringside during someone else's match. So he was in ECW, but ECW was never so big that working for them on a regular basis is enough to establish notability, it's not even close to WWE, more like Ring of Honor. MPJ -US 08:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he was extremely marginal in the group another idea could be to either merge of redirect to The Full Blooded Italians.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that working for the third largest wrestling promotion in the United States, who had a nationally (and then some) televised deal, doesn't establish notability. To work for the company for years is demonstration of notability. Keep in mind the parallels in other sports--playing a single MLB or NHL game is sufficient to establish notability. I'm not saying that a single match should be enough, but to compete for years, in a non enhancement/jobber role shows a level of achievement sufficient to show notability. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the books at the moment, but I have been told that All Or Nothing: The Story of Europe's Most Controversial Wrestling Company and Holy Grail: The True Story of British Wrestling's Revival (written by a former professional wrestler and a former professional wrestling manager, respectively) both have extensive coverage of Herman's career in the UK, where he also has a lengthy list of accomplishments to demonstrate notability. Ultimately, we've got a guy whose career on two different continents are each sufficiently notable; put them together, and there's no way this article should be deleted or merged. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on the search engines except some trivial mentions on News and Books. Zero on newspapers, scholar, highbeam and Jstor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article needs some help. The claims of notability are not fluff, and there is a German version of his article de:Ulf_Herman and the Germans tend to delete slightly more frequently than here (though it was never subjected to AFD there). There is some evidence that more sourcing exists ( http://m.hildesheimer-allgemeine.de/index.php?id=2983&tx_ttnews[backPid]=2978&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=316488&cHash=5a710414a25796e3c7816d47e29b66a6 - brackets in link are screwing up wikimarkup). Is anyone willing to userify and improve if deletion is the only other prospect?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I have also found this site (in translation): [46]. It describes him as a German wrestling legend and discusses his induction into the Hall of Fame for a German wrestling organization in recognition of his 23 years as a professional. I have also added a bit more information (with a few additional sources) and trimmed some of the promotional language. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being that this is the English language Wikipedia it's natural to unintentionally ignore foreign sources. His run in the English-speaking wrestling world wasn't incredibly noteworthy but he seems to have had a somewhat noteworthy career on the independent scene in Germany.LM2000 (talk) 00:17, 12 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Advantage Corporation

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

Trivial awards, refs are PR. No notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some sources that look pretty good,[47][48] but they are primarily about the org's surveys. CorporateM (Talk) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The resources are solid, including the awards. Perspective on the awards being trivial comes from a librarian, not a professional that understands the manufacturing and supply chain markets. Only four of the 12 references are connected to the company's benchmarked surveys. (Talk) 03:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain as my searches found virtually nothing but the article albeit not entirely good is acceptable I suppose. I'd like to hear from other users to better form my vote. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: -- blatant business promotionalism. Quis separabit? 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: -- this page can be improved, but is a worthy example of a Group Purchasing Organization. GPOs are very popular in insurance and manufacturing. Also noteworthy because it is founded by and run by a woman in a male-dominated industry. The founder and her career are referenced in General Managers in Action^[1], 1992, by Harvard Professor Frank Aguilar. She is also noted in the book Managing Corporate Ethics^[2], also by Frank Aguilar and published in 1994 by Oxford University Press, and in Lessons in Leadership by Charles Bernstein, 1993. In 1987, Harvard Business School published a case study on O'Sullivan and her management challenges at Groen (which is still in use at business schools across the US). GPOsAreReal]] 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

^ Aguilar, Frank (April 30, 1992). General Managers in Action: Policies and Strategies (Second ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 186, 489-490, 504. ISBN 0195073673.
^ Aguilar, Francis (May 12, 1994). Managing Corporate Ethics: Learning from America's Ethical Companies How to Supercharge Business Performance (First Printing ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 11.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be promotional, but that's not a reason in itself to delete. Sourcing is entirely routine business coverage. BusterD (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Actually, per WP:DEL-REASON, if an article is purely promotional/advertising, that is a reason for deletion. Regardless, this particular article doesn't meet WP:GNG, as per searches on the engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 8 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 04:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annansi Clothing Co.

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

Non-notable company and my searches found no marginally good evidence of coverage with the best here and here. It seems the author had a habit of not adding many good references (made several articles but not many good sources with them) and I'm not seeing any new evidence of better sources. Sure the article at least has sources and is neatly written but what I can't get past is no additional coverage and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, should be deleted, but see comments - I can't remember what brought me to the article now - I think I came across it in Ghanaian Fashion Designers category while housekeeping List of fashion designers and I think I was trying to find SOME sort of sourcing to make it less instantly non-deletable. The major problem with articles of this type is that African press is not always readily accessible online - I've run into trouble with other African fashion designers where they clearly seem to be notable in their country and recognised, but the sourcing is simply not readily accessible online - it means that sometimes you can barely tell the difference between a notable designer and someone trying to big up a non-notable. The fact that Kofi G. Annan has managed to get his marketing/social media techniques written about in a book about the subject is quite significant; and the further reading links to a significant essay he wrote along similar lines. For an African fashion designer, that sort of online availability of information is pretty amazing. But yes, the problem is that the (very little) of what else is out there is press releases, and there is also an issue that African fashion design is really underrepresented on Wikipedia. But technically, it should be deleted - although with no prejudice against recreation once further sourcing becomes available. Trouble is, this is something that sounds like it ought to pass notability, but there are next to no acceptable AND readily accessible sources. Mabalu (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . A good part of the firms's work and exhibitions have been in the US, so if there are no sources for this either, there's no basis for keeping this article. (If Annan is notable, there could be an article on him) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a minor clothing line with a nice story. That book source mentions it briefly, but the book itself seems to be an indiscriminate collection of company stories itself. --Slashme (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not quite to GNG. A reasonable search doesn't help us much. Might be sourcing out there, but I'm not seeing it. BusterD (talk) 04:22, 8 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 17:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saera (software)

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

No evidence for notability. Creating editor (who deprodded it) describes it on talk page as a "very young project in early stage of development". Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. PamD 08:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is vote against deletion of Saera article.

Saera intelligent personal assistant is open source what is significant fact as determines way, style, path, speed of development and no marketing activities but sharing information among users in communities. That was what I was meaning with "very young project in early stage of development", but after 4 of development and serving 4 operating systems it is nothing to be WP:TOOSOON.

Saera is of the same kind as Siri for iOS and Cortana for Windows. Because it is open source it has got no huge money in huge marketing departaments to advertise it, hence sources are limited now to mentioned in the article. Yet still it is notable as this is one of widely known intelligent personall asistant for main and of worldwide range OSes, and this is the only one for Linux MeeGo family which means it is significant for users of MeeGo, Sailfish, Maemo, Nemo systems. It is not any accidental file selector or irrelevant library but personal intelligent assistant with AI elements which still is (and note well: and will be during several years or even decades) under development. Hence used "young stage of development" is used in context of open source development but not context of WP:TOOSOON. A time ago the same situation and similar discussion (and also PROD nomination) was about Jolla and Sailfish OS or Jolla Tablet.

Saera (inteligent persona; assistant) ought to be treated in the same way as Siri or Cortana, hence deleting it is not any acceptable compromise. Resources available for open source project supporters or members or enthusiast and time of development of the Saera determines it is not yet as developed as Siri or Cortana ATM, but it is also not WP:TOOSOON already. Those projects, Siri and Cortana, are financed by 2 of the richest corporations all over the World, while Saera by open community only. Deleting Saera would be a discrimination of project developed according to open source standards in favour to collecting in Wikipedia only articles about and related with rich corporations. That would be discrimination because of owned money what would be unequal treating. The article has not been created in early 2011 but in 2015 after 4 years of development and after reached established position of Saera among users. However it doesn't have all features known from Siri or Cortana yet, it is still the same kind of IT tech, and still under development. Saera is functional, ready to use and available for interested in. Verifiable sources has been mentioned, even when there are not many of them still.

Don't delete Saera (intelligent personal assistant).Ocexyz (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: have found no independent sources to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and moreover the essay WP:NSOFT. BethNaught (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the independent source link is #4 Noori, Sepehr James. "Personal Assistant on Jolla and Sailfish OS". http://www.jollausers.com. JollaUsers. Retrieved 10 August 2015. And published a half a year ago, before PROD. Mentioned above policy is fulfilled/complied. Ocexyz (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not in-depth and moreover is to encourage people to donate. Still not enough for notability. BethNaught (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This is vote against deletion of Saera article. Deletion or moving the article to elsewhere will disable maintining and developing this article. This also would disable other, then me, contributors to improve it. WP:IAR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocexyz (talk • contribs)

NB This editor has already !voted above.

No two keeps please.. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notable sources. SmackoVector (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources I could find were on developer sites and they describe a very early stage in the development process. ([49], [50]). This is software on-its-way that needs to be beyond alpha before one can even think about a WP page. Although the development process may have been years, the page should wait until the software is deployed. LaMona (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ You metioned 2 sources, not all. Other sources from different languages shows this project is notable for wide range of readers and users from different languages and cultures. It hits very many and different people. So is notlable for many nations, meaning its members, not all nations. Software is in complete and functional/useabe stage as such, hence finished/deployed at the current state. Alpha stage means it is available only for developer{s) and not for practical use by common user - Saera is available for common user, and in the same time open repos are available for all who want to take part and contribute to the project, because it is open source. in the same time expectations and hopes from users reflects it is compared with other more advanced projects. But it is false thinking that such a project will ever have any particular and definable level, even after years. And Wikipedia reflects current state not any future hopes how it will look like in years. Following that logic both MS Word and Apple Siri articles ought to be deleted as they are still in development and will have different shape/stage/deployment in a time, different then it is now, now they are in alpha stage from this point of view. This lead to discrimination of all important projects that are not supported with huge money for marketing by big companies. I think your approach is not objective but "contaminated" with reflections from other similar projects, but unrelated to Saera IPS. Although I still believe in your good will. NB: above I have voted against deletion already, so I inform to avoid misunderstandings or something against correctness in discussion. Ocexyz (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to above: please note that Saera is open source what mean it has more developers/coders then one only, but all followers who develops the projects will recall first developer so at first look it may be an impression this is one person while this will be more persons who work with open source code and who shows first developer in front to make easier identification of project and to comply habits / good behaviour used in that scene. Note the projects hits many Linux platforms (Maemo, MeeGo, Sailfish) which are different OSes, users of many languages so many countries, many developers, and many people who decides this is so important / notable that notification about Saera is shared in the internet. What also makes this notable, no meter what stage of development it is ATM. Ocexyz (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ocexyz, the criteria that must be met is at wp:Notability (software). No amount of other arguments will have an affect on the outcome of the AfD process. Basically, you have to establish the significance of this software through reliable sources. Continuing to argue on other points does not help your case; in fact, it tends to show that you do not understand the WP process. Read up on the guidelines for software and look for sources that will support your case. Also, I note that you have created many pages with inter-related "see also" links (Sailfish_OS, MeeGo, Jolla, etc.). If you are directly involved with these projects then you should look at the conflict of interest guidelines to make sure that you are operating within that policy. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, I can't do more then searching and adding new sources, what I am doing. I am not involved in any of those projects, I observe them from the very beginning and also many others, and I am not in any situation of conflict of interests. That is MeeGo ecosystem which implies from Nokia N9 and MeeGo where also you can find some my contributions. Mentioned by you "see also" are related articles, as parts of ecosystems or in other ways, a background. Ocexyz (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm a massive fan of software freedom, so I hope this project becomes notable some day, but right now, it is very far from being notable. --Slashme (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing approaching multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. Until we have that, delete. BusterD (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom and above editors. Searches didn't reveal anything which would indicate that this passes the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 8 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 Hero (2015 film). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Pancholi

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

The person in the biography is not notable or contributed significantly in any nature. He had only appeared in one film and that is yet to be released. He is not known for any other significant coverage in media. I am nominating this article for deleting according to wiki policy on biographies. Wikipedia:ANYBIO

Rajkancherla (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - The subject does not meets the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR and it appears to be the case of WP:TOOSOON. Even the leading section of the article is pointing towards inherited notability. I suggest a redirect to Hero (2015 film) which will be a better option instead of deleting the article. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hero (2015 film) as a case of WP:TOOSOON. But we know that when the film would release multiple media houses will storm their press with trivial stuff like his fav bike, fav holiday destination, fav Hollywood film and stuff and then he would pass GNG because some fanboy will come and throw a google search result with 1000+ hits. Lets save our time and simply redirect it so a decent info from history of article is not lost. I will be redirecting Athiya Shetty too for same reason. He at least has some other credits on his name (astt. director) and one murder-suicide mystery too. Shetty seems to have none. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dharmadhyaksha. Ch an der 06:15, 2 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] Aguilar, Frank (April 30, 1992). General Managers in Action: Policies and Strategies (Second ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 186, 489-490, 504. ISBN 0195073673.

[2] Aguilar, Francis (May 12, 1994). Managing Corporate Ethics: Learning from America's Ethical Companies How to Supercharge Business Performance (First Printing ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 11.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John MacLean (Ontario politician)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KalyeSerye}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Fankhauser}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Fankhauser}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Haan's Bus & Coach}}
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAASCU Season 15}} -->