Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 October	15 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of three tallest structures in the world

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

Where to start. Unsourced since the turn of the decade and so impossible to check. The tallest structure is interesting but the second? The third? And if that why not the fourth or fifth?

The lengthy inclusion criterion is largely arbitrary, and is presumably editorial whim as there’s no source for it, making the lists subjective even if accurate. Accuracy is a particular problem the further back you go as it is presumably based on those still standing that can be measured.

And the formatting is badly broken. The laptop I am typing this on has a 1280 pixel wide screen but still cannot fit most of the third column in the top set. The combination of small blue text on saturated colours renders it at times unreadable. This can probably be improved but I’m not sure it can be fixed. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody but a trivia junkie cares about anything other than the tallest over the course of time, and the titleholders are already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world#History. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The inclusion criteria certainly do seem a bit arbitrary. I found this article at Smithsonian magazine, but it doesn't really give specifics, and it mostly just highlights how inclusion criteria can vary across groups that track these things. According to them, one prominent group doesn't even count TV/radio towers at all. As far as actual citations for the content, that's even more difficult. I assume that it's out there, but I'm not finding it in my quick-and-dirty searches. Most hits seem restricted to "it was at one point the tallest structure in the world" without giving any dates or specifics. So, I'm not really sure what to say. I guess it could just be deleted, but I suspect that a dedicated trivia fan could probably dig up a few sources. I'll wait to see if any do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is really no point in keeping this article. The topic hasn't been covered by reliable sources, so by necessity the creator put it together on his own. As others have pointed out before, the choice of the "top 3" structures and not the top 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. is quite arbitrary. By this logic, we could create an article on every single imaginable topic, which would be quite silly (Timeline of the lives of the top 4 oldest people, for example.) The important topic, List of tallest structures in the world, is already covered and the structures' individual timelines should also be discussed in their respective articles. As mentioned by nom, the article is also very poorly formatted and difficult to even understand as a result. --Biblioworm 19:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - material covered in other articles. Appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril Manolov

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

Questionably notable and improvable as my searches found nothing better than this and the current state is hardly acceptable with not much change since starting in July 2008. Note that this was once nominated before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiril manolov todorov. Pinging RHaworth, Edward321, Wikimandia and Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - arguably notable based on having performed in a tour around several countries including several cities in his native Bulgaria, Croatia etc. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a dreadful article, poorly referenced, and much in need of improvement. However, if you search under his name in Bulgarian (Кирил Манолов), you can find quite a lot in the Bulgarian press, including a big feature on him here in Vesti, a television interview here on Bulgarian National Television, and another big feature on him here in Trud. See also coverage of his performances in the title role of Falstaff in the Spanish, Italian, and Hungarian press here. Also reviews of his performances in leading roles in the German press, e.g. here and here (there are more). He has also won at least two major singing prizes. Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm in the process of completely re-writing and referencing the article. I've whacked it down to stub and will build it back up, although the finished product will be considerably more concise than the original hyperbolic version. Voceditenore (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now completely rewritten the article with multiple references. Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofie Ølgaard

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found was this and this and basically it seems there has been no further coverage about since 2011. Pinging Robert94704, Stone and Felix Folio Secundus. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but a comment - I did not find much coverage or scope for improvement, and this was pretty much the only decent source I could find. However, I have to ask the nominator why it's so very difficult to link to specific pages (as I did just then) rather than to general Google search result pages without commentary, as if Google search results are guaranteed not to change and show different hits at any given moment... Mabalu (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the awards mentioned do not show notability. I note there is no corresponding article in the Danish WP. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Weaver

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based reason, or are we to understand this nomination as based simply on a I just don't like it argument? The article certainly has plenty of sources to establish notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete the world oldest person article?...It is incorrect. also, this article has been created with the other 20 languages of Wikipedia. This person is well-known, there is no reason to be deleted. You're why hated so much longevity article? I do not understand the meaning of your action.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obviously. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Strong Keep This is getting ridiculous now. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ollie231213, and this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reason given here. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Being the world's oldest person is highly notably with lots of reliable independent coverage. Gap9551 (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously a non-policy based nomination of a clearly notable and well-sourced article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Depth of coverage establishes notability. clpo13_(talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah, on this reasoning, shouldn't all of the thousands of articles on athletes such as Alan Simpson (athlete)—notable only for an event—be deleted? --I am One of Many (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am One of Many - I will make the assumption that the person you mentioned only has sources related to the event mentioned in the article. I think that your argument is completely valid, and it helps emphasize my underlying concerns: the WP:1E guideline, and exactly what defines highly significant events, is ambiguous and not 100% clear. With such ambiguity and the lack of a clear definition, one (for example) could argue that Presidential assassinations or high profile killings aren't highly significant in their culture or mind. There goes David Chapman, John Wilkes Booth, Timothy McVeigh, and Lee Harvey Oswald! Of course, we know that a Presidential assassination clearly doesn't fall under WP:1E per being a highly significant event (I was just simply using this as an example), but it asserts my point - the ambiguity of WP:1E and lack of clear definitions and details opens the door for inconsistent article deletions and closures, as well as the possibility of miss-translations between one person and another. Precedents absolutely should not be the only method that is available to use as an appropriate reference behind AfD vote discussion, and I feel that the problems with WP:1E mentioned have been contributing to the need to do just that - resort explicitly to old AfD's in the past. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After getting some preliminary input and opinions from other editors, I've decided to draft a proposed change to WP:1E and expand the guideline. It will seek to define highly significant events compared to events that are not, as well as provide a list of standards that can be used in determining events as highly significant event. After the draft is finished, I'll run it by RFC. Also, see this Afd regarding a similar article currently nominated; editors in rebuttal have responded with very strong arguments (IMO). I'm considering whether or not to change my vote back to "Keep". ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. Sorry for all of the redacting. I found the essay that I was missing knowledge of, and I'm 100% back on board now :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mrs. Weaver's period as the oldest person in the USA as well as the oldest person in the world gained her reliable media attention from around the world; as such, she passes WP:GNG. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Article is very well referenced from multiple reliable sources, and being the world's oldest person on top of that means that this article clearly meets WP:GNG. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier (who was the oldest person, the oldest woman, the oldest Frenchever ever, and the oldest nun) of which Weaver has accomplished half of. All sources are WP:ROUTINE obituaries and news articles about her age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage like this is clearly not routine. How many times has your birthday been reported in the news? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person in X Country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misao Okawa

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was the oldest woman in the world part of her life. Georgia guy (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is world record holder, so notable. --Human3015^TALK 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; her life is notable for its length, as testified by the sourcing. Saying "longevity is not a reason" strikes me as a category error. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Delete the world oldest person article?...It is incorrect. also, this article has been created with the other 30 languages of Wikipedia. This person is well-known, reason for deleting the article does not have even one. You're why hated so much longevity article? I do not understand the meaning of your action.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: world record holder. period.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obviously. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep By this point, Canadian Paul should be laughed out of Wikipedia for attempting to nominate someone who's the 6th oldest person in history. Anyone this desperate to prove a point needs to take some time off, as they have successfully embarrassed themselves to the point that the only thing they could do that is more embarrassing would be nominating Shigechiyo Izumi or Jeanne Calment for deletion. This is not up for debate, this is literally the worst AfD I have ever witnessed, an embarrassment to the process. This is what happens when AfD decisions are twisted to the point that no one bothers to try anymore. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94, Please be mindful of your comments towards other editors and keep to a respectful and constructive form of criticism. Not only does your statement not make sense (Canadian Paul did not create nor vote on this AFD), but it's disruptive and demeaning, and doesn't accomplish what this process is supposed to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously notable person with significant sources and coverage to easily pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC (and I didn't even have to dig). The nominator of this ticket cited WP:NOTDIR as the main reason for listing this article for WP:AFD. There are no directories in this article whatsoever. Timtrent - I highly recommend that you brush up on WP:NOT and what the definition of a directory is. Directories are stand-alone lists of items that aren't associated with or significantly contribute to a Wikipedia topic or subject, such as a list of employee names and their phone number extensions under the organization's article, a syllabus or agenda of items for a concert, programming guides for a radio station, yellow pages or white pages - those are examples of directories. This article meets all notability criterion and does not qualify for deletion under AFD. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted this vote and changed to Delete. However, after taking additional time to find and read Wikipedia:What_is_one_event, I believe that the person does not fall into WP:1E. Specifically, noting that reliable sources cover her prolonged life with coverage on her 114th birthday, and so on. These constitute as separate events in her longevity, which is notable within itself. Therefore, I am officially reverting back to my original vote, and believe that the article should be kept. I apologize for all of the redaction; I'm just happy that I found that essay, which helped to clarify my assumptions regarding WP:1E and articles regarding people who lived an above-average life span. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable individual that has been cited in mutiple reliable sources, as the world's oldest person.Bodgey5 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oshwah says it best. Perhaps it is time for this to be closed early. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), simply being the oldest woman at one time was not sufficient for notability (also this isn't the Academy Awards, these "winners" are based solely on various sources alleging that she actually was the oldest woman alive at that time) because as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), obituary sources which they all are better to be considered WP:ROUTINE coverage that would be expected rather than examples of notability as required by WP:N. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that EVERY other person in this discussion - including editors uninvolved in this project - can clearly see that 1. Being the oldest person in the world is a notable accolade, and 2. The coverage in reliable sources is significant, and therefore this article should be kept. Citing a previous AfD to argue that this person isn't notable and that this one should be deleted is ridiculous (Koto Okubo wasn't even the world's oldest person and was unusual in that she didn't get covered widely in the media). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except it was different when it was Okubo as the oldest woman. Is the rule the oldest person, man or woman at that time? Therefore only the people at Template:Oldest people? I don't see the consensus for that from the other discussions. This feels like a complete one-off and I can't figure out why. And no, I'm not citing the prior one to reject this article per se; I'm saying that all the comments here that "Oldest woman ever = automatic keep" are quite odd and differ from all the prior discussions about this category of people. Most of Template:Oldest people is not written and as I noted, the depth of coverage here is largely obituaries which basically is routine coverage for most people. Not everyone who has a obituary is notable enough for inclusion so I'd need something more. All these AFDs are going wild with a ton of keeps or a ton of deletes (or just my delete and a ton of keeps) for some reason and we haven't seen to have figured out the middle ground yet and to me, "Oldest person ever" isn't it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note for the record that 8 out of the 14 references listed at the bottom of the article were written before the subject had died. So to describe the coverage as "largely obituaries" is innacurate. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Subject is notable enough by virtue of the depth of coverage. clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the world's oldest person in and of itself does not confer notability per any policy, but the extent of coverage in this case seems to satisfy WP:N. Canadian Paul 21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I took some extra time to evaluate Ricky81682 argument with precedence and WP:1E's relevancy with this nomination. In short, I agree with his argument and I am changing my vote. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} ~~23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)~~ Changing back to Keep - See explanation.[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. It's like saying "If Tiger Woods wasn't a golfer, he wouldn't be notable, so he shouldn't have an article". The whole point is that she didn't die at a young age, and that's why she's notable. Being extremely aged isn't one event any more than being a golfer is; it's an intrinsic part of the person. The amount of coverage that the world's oldest people receive in the news is evidence that the oldest people in the world are notable. Furthermore, it's not true to say that AfD's in the past have deleted articles like this. World's oldest people titleholders are typically considered notable enough for an article. (P.s. I know I've posted a similar message elsewhere in response to a similar comment, but not everyone will have seen that one). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A myriad of sources from different parts of the world (such as Great-Britain [13], Brazil [14], and Japan [15], for instance) have reported on this woman, most notably during the time when she was the world's oldest person - as the three previously cited sources all confirm. As such, she has gained enough notability and media coverage to be considered encyclopedia-proof. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Snow Keep - Article is about a person who has garnered widespread media coverage. Former oldest living person, and the fifth-oldest person ever. Clearly notable. Nominator does not provide a policy-based reason to delete. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A woman who lives to be 117 is notable, end of story. I think the problem with many of the recent longevity based Afd's (of which there have been a lot, I can hardly keep up) is that the nominator's are not interested and cannot understand how anyone else could be interested in this topic. I'm not interested in footballers, but I understand their articles serve a purpose. I also don't understand the nominator's point that "Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people" - agreed 100%, but it's also not a directory of footballers, Members of Parliament, ice hockey players, beauty pageant winners, Olympic cyclists etc. If you're going to apply the same standards to all of these categories, then you're going to have a busy week. JKSD93 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — JKSD93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep = article about a old supercentenarian. No reason to delete. Per other users. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is the oldest Japanese person in history. --Nixus Minimax (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Nixus Minimax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person from X large nation" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Lang (supercentenarian)

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes notability standards. oldest person in UK and The last United Kingdom resident who was born in during the reign of Queen Victoria is notable. In addition, the source of this article is not incomplete. you personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is shall not reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This person definitely belongs on the lists where she appears (although five lists on this topic, as indicated under the "See also" heading, does seem a bit excessive.) But there's nothing in this article that's particularly notable. Simply living a long time is not notable as that term is defined on Wikipedia; the only coverage in reliable sources is news items about successive birthdays and an obit. WP:NOPAGE. Also, nearly half of the article is filled with either information about her non-notable relatives and their ages or information about other "title-holders" and which "record-setters" succeeded which for each mythical "title". This is the stuff of trivia contests and hobbyist websites, not an encyclopedia. Human longevity is an important, encyclopedic topic. But not every long-lived person is notable simply because of their long life. David in DC (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being the oldest person in a country of 60 million, one of the oldest people ever, and the last subject of Queen Victoria is not notable? And you're concerned about the lack of sourcing? Oh well yeah, I suppose if you just ignore all the reliable sources she was covered in. This kind of attitude ("people can't be notable for longevity and I don't care what you say la la la") is typical of many involved in the WP:BATTLEGROUND on longevity-related articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ollie hit the nail on the head right there. This has devolved to the point that one editor was BLOCKED for this scenario - DN-boards1, and while I agree that their block was COMPLETELY justified - they violated civility - that does not mean every SC and centenarian article made by said user, or related to said user, is worthy of deletion! --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet of User:DN-boards1 who already voted above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a revision and add sources to this article.[16][17]--Inception2010 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG as she was covered in the media for successive birthdays, being the oldest person in Britain, and being the last British subject of Queen Victoria. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Per the exact reason I stated here on one of the many other articles that this editor nom'd for AFD (citing WP:NOTDIR with articles about oldest living humans). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. If notability and depth of coverage is the issue, redirect to List of British supercentenarians as an alternative. clpo13_(talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments here and keep in mind that notability is not temporary. She was clearly for being the oldest living person in the United Kingdom, and that notability does not end with death. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am One of Many - After reviewing everything again, I agree and I've changed my vote back. See my explanation above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although being the oldest person in the United Kingdom is not, in itself, reason to justify a standalone article, the vast amount of media coverage given to Ethel Lang from various reliable sources certainly allows for such an article to exist. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A large amount of media coverage is available, and other factors mentioned in these sources (e.g. being the last British subject of Queen Victoria) indicate notability beyond simply longevity. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person in X Country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12 (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALEX AL

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

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sakari Momoi

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Unlike the other supercentenarians nominated at the same time, this individual was, for a time, the world's oldest living man. That's a far more credible claim to notability than (from some of the other nominated articles) the oldest living person in California, the oldest Irish-born person, or even the oldest Jewish person. The latter are all, at least arguably, trivial intersections. But there is a unique oldest living man at any given time and, presuming there is third-party coverage sufficient to provide sourcing, those record-holders likely do have an inherent claim to notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Biographical articles on Wikipedia only survive on the basis of "person is notable or non-notable". And record holder of "world's oldest living man" is notable. --Human3015^TALK 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think mass-proposing deletions with the same justification ("Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here.") is somewhat nonconstructive, and calls for a single centralised discussion somewhere. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa‎ Imaginatorium (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obviously. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree with Ollie, they have at this point mass spammed the AfD with nominations of every oldest person they can find. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. EEng (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this. This editor nominated a list articles of oldest living humans and cited WP:NOTDIR. This person is clearly notable per my diff statement and is not eligible for deletion per AFD. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consistently cited in various sources, and is certainly notable as the world's oldest man. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. This particular article is well sourced and the person is clearly notable. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he was the oldest living man in the world. Dman41689 (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), even in 2012 being the oldest woman in Asia wasn't sufficient for notability to create a separate article (and the oldest in the world wasn't sufficient in 2015). The problem is the numerous WP:SPAs who have voraciously fought on these articles for a decade. Plus these articles (at least the English ones I can read) are obituaries and thus what was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination) as WP:ROUTINE coverage as opposed to actual sources that would fall under WP:N. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682, the Japanese sources numbered 2 and 3 are dead links, but their titles are about him becoming the oldest man in Japan. Then as you can see from the English titles, sources 4 and 5 are about him becoming the world's oldest man. So they are not all obituaries. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no specific policy cited to justify deletion. Notability and significance established per Squeamish Ossifrage's rationale. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the oldest anything does not, in and of itself confer automatic notability, but it does appear in this case that the subject of the article has met the coverage requirements of WP:N. Canadian Paul 22:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Moved to Keep.'[reply]
Keep I notice it was mentioned here that Mr. Momoi was mainly reported on when he died, yet I beg to differ; not only did his "ascension to the throne" gain him media attention (such as [30], [31], [32], and [33] to mention just a few), he was also reported on in his home country/in Asia during his life: [34], and [35] for a start. Being unable to read/understand another language does not alter the fact that this man was regularly reported on in the last years before his death. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep Strange discussion. I think this discussion should be immediately closed as Keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep World record such as fastest...., loudest..., most number of times..., etc. might be trivial and generally not notable. But this is a case of unique biological/medical condition. It is not something that you perform but a natural phenomenon. The subject will be remembered in medical history. Chhandama (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest man in X large country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Steinberg

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and consider a merger, in part) to List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire. I would not be opposed to short capsule biographies in articles such as this, as are present in List of German supercentenarians. But I don't think the project is well-served by separate articles for by-country record holders. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oppose to redirect or delete this article. she was second oldest person in United States (and one of the last people who was born in the 19th century), it is notable. as with Antonia Gerena Rivera that became keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera. In addition, the source of this article is not incomplete. personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is not reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG (well sourced and notable for being the oldest ever person from the Russian Empire/Moldova and the oldest ever Jewish person). Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ollie231213, and this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the sixth oldest person in the world at that time (45th overall) and second oldest in the United States is not notable. Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), being the oldest person in the world is not sufficient efor being notable. Here, she was allegedly the oldest person person in present-day Moldova and the oldest person born in the historical Russian empire (of course this is barely sourced to a single source, the GRG tables) and the oldest Jewish person (which is where the articles are coming) but this kind of trivial connections are not enough for a separate article on the person. There is no List of the oldest Jews as I think most people would question against similar lists for other religions as trivia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm going to look into your argument in-depth when I get home. Precedents are definitely worth examining, and this is potentially a precedent I didn't know about. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Don't give them too much credence though. Consensus can change and with the small number of users at AFD nowadays, consensus can swing wildly article to article for whatever reason. I just bring those up because the nominator here really didn't put much effort in and the issues I'm looking at have been discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Koto Okubo was never the oldest person in the world, only the world's oldest woman.

2. She remained anonymous until age 114 and was not covered widely in the media, so there wasn't much to write a biography about. That was the bigger reason to delete her article. But clearly, if a world's oldest person titleholder DOES get covered in the media, the wider community clearly does think that they're notable. See here.

3. That Goldie Steinberg is the "oldest verified Jewish person ever" is not really an issue of "trivia". Notice that in a large number of reliable sources, she was reported on because she was the "oldest Jew". Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect outside sources... and the media clearly think that this is notable. So do I. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, Steinberg was the sixth oldest person. As to sourcing, WP:N says we look at the reliable sources that exist to determine notability. The lack of coverage is evidence of her lack of notability, as opposed to asserting a prior that she is notable and the lack of evidence is is why her biography is lacking. The fact that a titleholder didn't get covered unless it's a bunch of obituaries at the time of his or her death further convinces me that this coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage, more like a WP:BLP1E situation and not evidence of notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being the sixth oldest person is not what she is primarily notable for. She's most notable for being the oldest Jewish person ever, as determined by the reliable news sources that have reported her as "the oldest Jewish person ever". Furthermore, your reasoning regarding the Koto Okubo AfD does not make sense. Why should, in theory, one particular world's oldest person be less notable than another? They both held the same title. And the fact that the W.O.P titleholder usually gets covered in the media suggests that being the world's oldest person is notable. That's why I'm in favour of saying that all such titleholders pass WP:GNG, in the same way that it's often decided on Wikipedia that "every member of parliament is notable enough for an article" and "every PGA tour golfer is notable enough". The only reason not to have an article would be the odd case like Koto Okubo where she wasn't as widely covered and as such, there aren't many details to write an article about. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then forgetting Okubo then, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier was closed with a person who was (1) the oldest living person; (2) the oldest living woman; (3) the oldest Frenchwoman ever and (4) the oldest nun and none of those facts made her automatically notable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Tessier wasn't recognised as the WOP at the time due to Izumi's claim; had people known about him not being the age he claimed to be at the time, there would have been a (large) probability for Mrs. Tessier to have received more media coverage (such as Izumi received). Using Tessier as an example is clearly taking issues out of their context in this case.Fiskje88 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Otherwise, an alternative would be to redirect or merge to a relevant list of supercentenarians. clpo13_(talk) 20:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage consists almost entirely of obituaries and her 114th birthday party, which does not satisfy the requirements of WP:N. Canadian Paul 22:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that WP:1E should trumps WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, but in this case there are a couple of reasons that make this dubious. First, a lifespan is not an event. It is the length of a lifespan that is notable, not any particular point in time. Second, she is the oldest verified Jewish person. If we were to call a lifespan an event, then according to WP:1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." For many, being the oldest Jew is a highly significant event. So, I think you had a stronger argument for your original keep. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. It's like saying "If Tiger Woods wasn't a golfer, he wouldn't be notable, so he shouldn't have an article". The whole point is that she didn't die at a young age, and that's why she's notable. Being extremely aged isn't one event any more than being a golfer is; it's an intrinsic part of the person. The amount of coverage that the world's oldest people receive in the news is evidence that the oldest people in the world are notable. Look at all these reports on Goldie Steinberg while she was still alive. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am One of Many and Ollie231213. Thanks for responding to my vote change. To be honest, I'm very "on the fence" with my redaction. I think that both of your arguments in rebuttal are absolutely strong and enough for me to (wow... lol) consider redacting... my redaction... as stupid as this sounds (haha). My tipping point right now is WP:1E; I think that there are issues with ambiguity and lack of clarity in WP:1E, and that this lack of clarity is allowing AfDs to close inconsistently as well as overly-wide interpretations to occur. I think that you're right; the cause for notability (longevity) isn't an "event". I just see a big problem when editors are able to cite old AfD's with articles in identical areas that resulted different closures. Seeing the older AfDs that resulted in deletion of similar articles (people who loved a long time) is what contributed to my vote change. Expansion and clarity to this guideline is needed, and will help clearly define two very important terms:

What is an event, and
What is highly significant.

~~See my discussion about this here. I'm going to start on this now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've changed my vote back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources consider her being the oldest Jewish person as notable, and I don't see a violation of WP:GNG either; in addition, being one of the last known survivors of the Kishinev pogrom establishes notability beyond simple longevity. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person of X ethnicity" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple years of media coverage - NOT just her 114th birthday, as there are reports and photographs from 109th [49] and 112th [50] birthdays - as well as coverage for being the world's oldest verified Jew ever make her notable. Again, some people try to diminish a person's notability to a WP:1E when this is not the case. Research (and help improve the article, if you think there is not enough information in there) before you decide to nominate. Fiskje88 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 11:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominga Velasco

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of old people. This lady fails WP:GNG and the article is a massive copyright violation of http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_2360616 Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses As someone extremely critical of the longevity walled garden, I have to say this one's premature. If you'd checked the article's talk page, you'd have seen that there are clear indications that GNG can be met e.g. an exhibit about her at the Oakland Museum etc.. You're right about the copyvio, and I'll redact that now -- someone can paraphrase it later. EEng (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Mexican supercentenarians (retaining the redirect). Rework the content appropriately, styling it after the other by-country supercentenarian lists. Much of the coverage about this individual is fundamentally local in nature; I think the project is better served by merger to (or, in this case, creation of) the appropriate list, along with a sourced capsule biography (in the mold of List of German supercentenarians) rather than a stand-alone article, regardless of whether the bare expectations of the GNG can be satisfied. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of a zillion worthless longevity bios, this is one only one with material coming on line at this very moment. It may very well work out as you say. But jeesh, why the hurry? EEng (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable delete This page is a total blatant to WP:GNG, but important. Since List of Mexican supercentenarians is not made yet, merge is off the table until it is, although I would personally prefer it when it is made. Either delete it, or revise it. We also need LESS PICTURES, agreed. GyrizeGSBWALUIGI77 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Oldest person ever born in Mexico and second oldest person in United States is notable. as with Antonia Gerena Rivera (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera result was keep), this article itself should be keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person was VERY prominent in her earlier years, to the point that as said above, she had an exhibit in the Oakland Museum. It'd be one thing if it was someone non-notable like Joseph Saint-Amour, but this is just ridiculous. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the same reason I stated in one of the many other articles that Timtrent tagged for AfD (oldest living humans and citing WP:NOTDIR). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to Draft:Dominga Velasco and the page a redirect.~~ Keep In response to EEng, we shouldn't go on "there's possible sources so we should wait" as that excuse could fly anywhere. Talk:Dominga Velasco has some interesting mentions that indicate that she may be independently notable, with her longevity being a secondary concern. Allegedly there's a Velasco building in Oakland named after her (I can't find any evidence of that searching). However, here is a link (not a reliable source) about a "Sigame" sculpture in Oakland about the pioneering women of Oakland which includes "Dominga Velasco "Domingita" 1901– Pioneer of the Mexican-American movement in Oakland", i.e. her. There may be a mention at the Oakland Museum but I can't find that either searching online. I'll keep looking for sources but as an alternative, we can "draftify" the article, i.e. move this articles and all its history to Draft:Dominga Velasco under the Articles for Creation banner which will give six month increments to improve and review it while this page is then made into a new, separate redirect. If the draft article works out, we can move it back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This biographical section about her has more details, including a link to the plaque. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's lots of stuff on her. Search also under "Dominguita Velasco". Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources support notability outside of simply living a long time. clpo13_(talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She received significant media coverage and is also the oldest Mexican verified. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While this bio is full of the usual fluff and needs trimming back, and while simple long-livedness does not, in itself, confer notability, Velasco may just barely scrape by based on her history of activism. The Trib article citing her activism and the book listing her as one of the activists honored in an Oakland statue sort of seem to set her apart. They're pretty week reeds to rest on and I'll not be dismayed if the closer finds them insufficient. David in DC (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person born in X large country" is kept. Normal editing processes can fix the issues here. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oldest person verified to have lived in a major country confers notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Fruchtenbaum

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources cited include: a very brief entry on him in a list of people on a page headed "About us", and therefore clearly not an independent source; two dead links; a book of which he was co-author, and so not an independent source; a brief paragraph about him on the web site of a church. The only source cited which contains significant coverage of him is an article on the web site "The Christian Post", here, but that is nowhere near enough to satisfy the standards required for notability on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very significant Google Scholar results for the subject area indicate that he passes WP:PROF #1. St Anselm (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very significant (as above) - very well known internation speaker on the Christian / Messianic circuit. Well published and often refered to in academic theological reading lists. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of notability is backed by sources present both in the article and available for addition as listed above. Alansohn (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Albion Rovers F.C. season

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

Season article for a club not playing in a fully-professional league. Clearly fails WP:NSEASONS. Was prodded and deleted but restored as a result of this discussion. Similar AfD in September resulted in deletion.

Also nominating: 2012–13 Albion Rovers F.C. season and 2011–12 Albion Rovers F.C. season. Number 5 7 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – All three articles fail WP:NSEASONS as none were played in a recognized fully-professional league, and all three fail WP:GNG on their own. As all references appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, I don't believe merging them together is appropriate since the resultant article would still likely fail GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fundamental failure of WP:NSEASONS: the club does not play either in a top league, nor a lower tier that is considered a fully professional league. The discussion noted above has clear WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issues which should not be brought here. In addition to the AfD noted above though, it also notes this AfD and this one which support the notion that there is clear consensus above and beyond the guidelines that non-fully professional clubs do not need their own season articles unless they can be supported by WP:GNG on an article-by-article basis. In the articles above, there are no references that are not routine results reporting. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 11:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Side Gymnasium

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

non notable structure John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elkhart Central High School. I fail to see why a HS gym would be notable, but since it is one of the largest in the country and might be a search term, a redirect makes the most sense. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not oppose a redirect, but since both high schools use it, I think merging to the school district is a better option. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that there isn't much here, but I also note that it was used as the home field for a team in the International Basketball League. The good folks over at WikiProject Basketball don't seem to have formed any guidelines as to the notability of venues. But I've seen other sport WikiProjects take the position that even a single professional game played at a venue renders it "notable". Unless the Basketball project says otherwise, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to "keeping". NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly Oppose. The problem with a merge and redirect is that this fieldhouse is used by both high schools in Elkhart (both of which have articles even though only one is linked to in the fieldhouse article). Which high school article should it be described in, and to which one would the redirect go? Indyguy Indyguy (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of largest high school gymnasium in the country is not only a strong claim of notability, but is backed up by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. A smattering of the available material was added, and more could be included, but the notability standard is met. The lack of an obvious merge target for a shared gym makes the redirect option less viable than retention. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belim

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

No proof of existence. Article says that there are large number of people belonging to the community but it's hard to believe when I can find almost zero sources online (even mentions). Possibly a WP:HOAX. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no subject-matter expertise and will defer to others who do, but I notice that this article and links to it are the creator's only edits, which is never a good sign in these cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence in reliable sources that this group exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not likely to be a hoax, but these South Asian "social group" / community / subcaste articles are a mess, and the fact that many of the obvious sources are patently unreliable doesn't help the project keep them in working order. In this case, I think the best choice is to redirect to Behlim. I'm hesitant to call for a merger, except perhaps the community's bare presence in Afghanistan. The Mughal Royal Accountants origin story doesn't have support in any reliable sources that I could locate quickly, and is as likely to be dubious oral tradition as anything else in their absence; it certainly should not be merged without carefully considered sourcing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a wikiproject someone could post a query to, to get a better perspective on how real any of this might be? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's WikiProject Ethnic groups, but it's not very active. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a geographically based one? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, WikiProject Afghanistan or WikiProject India. In reality, for many reasons, I don't believe any project has made an organized effort to address this category of articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word Belim rings a bell and when I navigated to Behlim, they seem similar (both lack enough reference). If someone can produce evidence that Belim is indeed another alternative spelling of Behlim, create a redir. If not and if some of the original contributors of Belim care about, it should go through an AfC process. --nafSadh did say 19:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find no source that proves their existence let alone sources to prove they are notable. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Voss

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

Seemingly NN pastor of a marginally notable church and professor. Doesn't appear to come close to passing WP:GNG or WP:Academic. The Dissident Aggressor 16:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete took a swing at sourcing this by searching news archives with keywords like Lutheran and Milwaukee, did so because I figured someone must have had a reason for starting an article on him. I found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks like a NN pastor to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taktum

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

Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and article does not also point out why she is important. Searches not returning anything positive either. Delete or maybe redirect? —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Seems NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA players who have played in the Chinese Basketball Association

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

I don't think this list meets WP:LISTN Some of these athletes who've played for or originated from the CBA are already mentioned in the opening paragraphs of Chinese Basketball Association. I'm not sure whether this should be merged and deleted to Chinese Basketball Association or fully deleted. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unless someone can come up with a source for the list, both to properly source it and to justify its existence as a standalone list article. Otherwise it does not work as a list here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think it's notable in the context of CBA history and prestige to provide a list of its players who have played in the world's top basketball league. Granted the article has a lot of problems right now – what it desperately needs is references, some sort of affirmation that the list is complete, and more information (i.e. something like the table at Irish Experiment) – but the notability and validity of the article as a whole seems adequate to me. Aspirex (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An abbreviated list could be appropriate somewhere. A comprehensive, sourced list would be a huge headache, though. English-language information on the CBA is spotty, and even if you can read Chinese, I think it would be difficult to keep tabs on everyone, since teams are constantly dropping and replacing their imports. (If there is some CBA-related equivalent of basketball-reference.com, it may be possible, but I'm not aware of anything like that.) Zagalejo^^^ 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did find this, which could potentially be helpful, but I don't know if it's comprehensive. Zagalejo^^^ 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a list is the way to go. The players that have played in both will be in the cross-section of the two categories for each league (more akin to trivia then) but I think we're better off if any "history of the CBA" articles merge in the history of any notable players rather than a mere cross-section list of all players in both leagues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN, with no independent, reliable sources discussing this grouping. I wouldn't be surprised if they exist in Chinese sources, but nobody has demonstrated that they do (and I do not speak it). Yes the NBA is the top-tier basketball league in the world, but let's not start a precedent to use that fact to blindly create a similar grouping for all other all leagues in which former NBA players have participated in, and presume such a grouping is universally notable.—Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bagumba's rationale immediately above: fails WP:LISTN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nassif

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

promotional and not notable. The only RSs are about his divorce from his wife, who is notable. He's not even simpt. enough for a redirect,unless we add redirectsfrom the names of everyone who is divorced from a notable person. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the co-host (and also a co-executive producer) of Botched, which will be entering its third season next year. He's also appeared on Dr. 90210 and The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. I'm not too familiar with those two shows, and I don't know what his role was on 90210, so I'm not sure if those appearances make him notable. He has also contributed to/authored roughly 20 to 30 journal articles that I can find on Google Scholar, again I don't know if those make him notable. The article is lacking and maybe a bit promotional, but I think with work and better sources it could be improved. Melonkelon (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Botched obviously as searches easily find links for him but there may not be enough for a better separate article and he is best known for the TV show thus linking there is best. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with Botched the other shows and being a noted surgeon I can not see why he should be deleted 152.31.193.130 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Melonkelon - one of the world's most famous plastic surgeons. H-index of 9, quite high for someone who is not an academic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is not only known for having a famous wife, known even more for several television shows, including Botched and its spin-off which been just announced. Mymis (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mar del Plata#Culture. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa Mutante

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

Basically seems to be an advert for an art collective/regular event night in Buenos Aires, but the only tenuous claim to notability is having a profile on a website linked to the Ministry of Culture. Online I can only see coverage in blogs, events listings and other unreliable sources. This Wikipedia article seems to have been written enthusiastically but prematurely. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the festival is actually held at Mar del Plata, 404 km south of Buenos Aires.--Darius (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I live in Mar del Plata, the city where the festival is held, and frankly the first notice I have about is English Wikipedia. No more notability that any other cultural event held in any medium-size city in the world.--Darius (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put my opinion on hold until reliable sources on the event could be found. I made the mistake of judging this article through my personal experience, my apologies.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I live in Mar del Plata and after the collective was awarded an official recognition by the City. They have also appeared in the local newspaper several times. And some of the sources used are Digital Magazines and Newspapers that cover events in the Mar del Plata area, like Ajo Digital, EntreArte and Butaca 22. Though it doesn't seem much compared to groups and collectives from bigger cities around the world for one in Mar del Plata, they are actually quite known within the artist's community. If the issue arises from the need of more reliable sources like newspapers, the local newspaper doesn't upload all the articles, but I can get the dates when the articles about them where published to reference. So, does the article need more important references? Acrata 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)AcrataAcrata 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrata (talk • contribs)

Reply Thanks for the information Sionk. I also want to ask, if in an event people from other cities and countries participate, does their involvement not make the event known enough even if it moves in the independent artist community? I'm asking as one of the references is from the Uruguayan Book Fair and they have spread to the city of La Plata where a similar event takes placeAcrata 08:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)AcrataAcrata 08:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrata (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mar del Plata#Culture where it is currently mentioned as although my searches found nothing good, this can be saved for future use. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:32, 7 October 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, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schoortasche

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

Can find no evidence that such a term exists. Only hits are mirror sites. Vrac (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Holland-related deletion discussions. Vrac (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would've actually seemed best for the Hudson Valley article but there's simply no obviousness of improvement. BTW Vrac how was it you found this article? SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in the orphanage. Know any Dutch-speaking editors? Maybe one could shed some light on this term. Vrac (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 7 October 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, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The etymology is nonsense, there is no evidence of use, and I suspect this is a hoax to be pronounced "short-ass".--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - etymology aside, article fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Ranchi

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

This is a recently created article, published by Mularam2014 (talk · contribs) on 7 September 2015‎. The concern is that this article is based upon a single source, and that source is an internet forum post which provides absolutely no verifiable detail. See: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=126895518&postcount=1056 I am recommending deletion, as this list is purely based upon original research and fails basic verification policies. Efforts were made WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate reliable sources, but were not successful on my part. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears none of the listed buildings are notable (we barely have enough entries in Category:Buildings and structures in Ranchi to have a completely general "list of buildings and structures in Ranchi", period), and so we'd at least expect some measure of the list topic itself ("tallest buildings in Ranchi") being notable and thus satisfying WP:LISTN. Otherwise I'm failing to see the informational value, and I think we (correctly) tend to delete "tallest buildings" lists under these circumstances. postdlf (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see how this is notable enough for its own lift. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe the lack of references at this time is an adequate reason on its own to delete the article. Surely there is some record, perhaps at the city hall. Ma^t_chups 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we have to compile this data ourselves because no secondary source ever has, and if we have to dig through public archives to locate the data in the first place, then I can't see how this is a topic we should be covering. And even though we can compare heights to tell that one building is taller than another, we'd have to make our own judgments about whether our research has been comprehensive enough (and that we are comparing the right figures from building to building), which would slide this into WP:OR. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 14 October 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, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say the Time

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. A shareware people's choice award is a distinction of questionable importance. Lacks coverage in RS. Barely scraped by its first AFD in 2006. I suspect standards have evolved to where this subject is no longer considered notable.Vrac (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than a few links at Books, browser and Highbeam and a better article can be started later if it can. Pinging still active users LFaraone and Nihonjoe. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 7 October 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, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to be kept. r a y u k k. 21:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Vörös

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

Questionably notable as there's not much here especially sourcing and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - searches turned up nothing to show notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 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, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With Tokyogirl79's addition of 2 more reviews, consensus seems to tip to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight for Canada

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

No indication of notability, found one HuffPo review but that's about it. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:BKCRIT with this footnote, this academic review, and this newspaper article. It needs rewritten, though, as it's insufficient as-is. Apparently the book's author has a reputation among some as an anti-free trade crank so it could be notable because of the author. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the HuffPo piece I found wasn't about the book, just thought I'd mention that. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only criterion of WP:NBOOK this book has a chance of meeting is criterion one. It requires that the book be the subject of two or more non-trivial published works independent of the book. At first glance, we have four sources: the Huffington Post article, the footnote, the Calgary Herald article, and the academic review from persee.fr. However, Primefac said he made a mistake and that the Huffington Post article didn't really exist after all, so that can be disregarded. The "article" from the Calgary Herald is actually not about the book, but rather about the author (it only mentioned the book once). That leaves us with the academic review and the footnote. But a footnote can't really be called a non-trivial work; it's more of a passing mention. We're left with only the academic review, which is not enough to meet the book notability criteria (it requires two non-trivial independent sources). Therefore, I think the justification for keeping this article is quite weak. --Biblioworm 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm:, I've found two more reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Where? --Biblioworm 15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Biblioworm: The Calgary Herald and Books in Canada. They came up when I searched via my college's databases, although I was able to find a copy of the BIL article that didn't require access. Both are fairly major outlets (or was, in the case of BIC), so they'd qualify as RS. That leaves us with three reviews, which would show notability, but I'd like to be able to find things that could flesh the whole article out as a whole. I'm going to drop a note at WP:CANADA and see if anyone there has read the book and could use the book to flesh out the article more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 16 October 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, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Galdi

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

Biography of a non-notable CEO, fails WP:BASIC. Most of the available sources are press releases and websites that are almost certainly owned by the subject's company, World Global Network. See the similar AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/World Global Network. - Mr X 15:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this could've easily been A7, MrX as there's not even much and it's unlikely there's much for him apart from World Global Network. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, SwisterTwister. The reason that I didn't nominate it for CSD A7 is because I removed the (unsourced) claims of significance.- Mr X 18:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drync

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

I am the creator of the page and SmartSE thinks that this I have a conflict of interest which is not a truth. I would like to move it to AFD to deny this claim. Ireneshih (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ireneshih, I'm very confused. Are you assuming that nominating one of your own articles for deletion will help you out in the sockpuppet investigation opened against you? I would suggest reading this and responding to the claim on the investigation page instead. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) --Pinging SmartSE.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I guess WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Even without sock puppets... This is just another app that tries to establish its notability by spamming product reviews. Ceosad (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So reliable reviews aren't what is required to pass the software notability bar anymore, what's next? Only software that has been used to reach the Moon will be notable? And surely you aren't suggesting that the article should be deleted because there's soapbox drama going on, as a means of punishment towards someone. LjL (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't given much credence to the Wikipedia:Notability_(software) essay, determining which software is notable is a tricky and subjective matter (as nearly all non-person,non-book notability discussion are). To suggest that "computer" books or magazines establish notability doesn't make sense in this context (as it would in the case of history or rare birds), so we're left to look at whether multiple credible sources are writing editorial and/or informative content on the subject. It's easy to cast aside software reviews, but they're presently the means by which nearly all modern software is discussed in an objective manner (unless the Wikipedia list of software is to stop in 1999). Older, less-noteworthy software that made it in with the "Wiki land rush" must not crowd out software that is more recent and noteworthy. Queries for drync show extensive writing on it by a number of sources with a style and substance that satisfy WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Wikipedia is not. Any investigation should certainly take its course and any misconduct be dealt with, but that would not seem to bear on a deletion request at this time.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy for now and I'm also thinking keep for this exactly as this is a start but may need to be stored aside until better improvement can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article seems sourced well enough to establish notability, reviews are what's nearly always requested in software AfDs and there we have them, and we most certainly shouldn't punish the readers (by deleting a worthy-of-inclusion article) for soapbox that's going on among some of its editors. LjL (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Global Network

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

Article about a non-notable company that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The article's sources are a website with a poor reputation, a unreliable "award" website, a Forbes article that makes no mention of the subject, and a press release. This article caught my attention because of Fabio Galdi was recently created by an SPA, in what appears to be an effort to promote the subjects. Possible an Orangemoody connection? - Mr X 15:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Caldani

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

Seems to be an autobiographical article. Just doesn't have the sourcing to meet the notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 12:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches instantly found no better sourcing thus nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Pageants in Georgia (country)

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

I have no idea what this is about. Is Georgia Beauty pageants a company? Or is this article mean to summarise the topic of beauty pageants in Georgia? I can't find any WP:RS to indicate that Georgia Beauty Pageants is an annual event. I recommend WP:TNT Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3, an obvious hoax. You don't hold a beauty pageant to pick representatives to multiple other pageants. Established pageants make their own selections. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common for a national pageant to select delegates to multiple international pageants. (Example: Miss Iceland). My concern for this article is that it is an obvious recreation of deleted material. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as WP:TNT and restart if better later. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gretz

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

Non-notable musician. He may have been a drummer in several marginally notable bands, but he himself is not notable and there's nothing in the article that would be missed if it were deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as there's nothing to suggest better improvement aside from some News, browser and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Skies

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

Non-notable band. Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing good aside from this and this is the same type of artices I have been nominating and currently and am going to continue searching for as there's simply no improvement including this one. Pinging tagger RJFJR. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Double Door Inn

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any to support notability. No AllMusic staff review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose if there's no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 11:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic Paganism

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

This page has numerous issues; I would like for the community at large to give their opinion as to whether or not it should be kept. I believe it was already deleted in the past, but I am not entirely sure of this. Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was deleted via WP:A7 on 21 August 2015, by Sphilbrick. ~~Just by a glance I'm not entirely sure if this really expands on Modern paganism. The idea of this is already somewhat covered with this portion:~~

The term neopagan provides a means of distinguishing between historical pagans of ancient cultures and the adherents of modern religious movements. This category of religions includes syncretic or eclectic approaches like Wicca, Neo-druidism, and neoshamanism at one end of the spectrum, as well as culturally specific traditions, such as the many varieties of polytheistic reconstructionism, at the other. However, some reconstructionists reject the term neopagan because they wish to set their historically oriented approach apart from generic neopagan eclecticism. Scholarly writers often prefer the term contemporary paganism to cover all new polytheistic religious movements, a usage favoured by The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field.

I suppose that this could probably be redirected to the article on modern paganism. It's slightly a neologism in this specific format, but the above section does show that the term "eclectic" has been used to describe modern paganism so it'd likely be a reasonable redirect. I'm going to perform a little more research before making a final decision, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's considered to be both separate and part of modern paganism depending on who you read. Some classify it as separate, some as part. I've found two good sources and if I can find at least one more, I'm going to argue for this to be kept separate since the academic source argues that it's separate from modern paganism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect. I've found mention of this in reliable sources like academic texts and this seems to be viewed as separate from modern paganism to a certain extent. The article in its original format kind of gave off the impression that the above (now struck) paragraph would roughly cover this enough to where it'd be redirectable to the page for MP, but the sourcing I've added shows that this is not the case. On a side note, I can't remember if Llewellyn is reliable or not. I'm leaning towards not, but I've included it just sort of to show that this is a thing. It looks like part of the issue with finding sources for this is mostly because the terminology for this is a little loose. It is covered however, and mentioned as a specific version of paganism in this one by NYU Press. Part of the reason for the confusion is that sometimes it's sort of generalized with MP and other forms of paganism, but it is considered to be separate by its practitioners for the most part. I think that there's enough to keep, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is also termed "Universalist Paganism" per this source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding the term "Druidcraft" attached to it as well and it'd fit the initial version of the article, but this was put out through a non-academic publisher so I'd like to make a search for this term and find an academic source before putting this in the article. ([51]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to this being merged and redirected into modern paganism, so I'm slightly altering this to take into consideration a merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Machines

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

Short-lived local company and my multiple searches simply found nothing at all so although there may be some sources archived and at local news media, this is enough to show the company never got noticeable attention and, at best if necessary, this can be mentioned elsewhere such as Edina, Minnesota's article about this company but I'm not seeing much need. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, the article fully admits one of its sources was basically a paid promotion, non-notable defunct company. Nsteffel (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy-based reasons for keeping stated. Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramriddlz

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

Person's only claim to fame is that a famous person remixed or covered one of his songs, if I understand it correctly. The sourcing is thin as well. Not notable per ARTIST or per GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Migos article was created because Drake remixed their song. The article is supported by reliable sources such The Fader, Complex and Rap-Up. He is also has a EP released. You're against this article because you disagreed with my edits on the Fetty Wap accident, which was supported by reliable sources. Ramriddlz also did a interview with Vice Media, Inc. which is very credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm from Covina (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also see his song "Sweeterman" was mentioned in a written article for Billboard. http://billboard.com/entry/view/id/132525
- Actually, I got interested in your edits because it was suggested you were a sock of a pretty prolific master. Anyway, it doesn't matter: the article should be able to stand on its own, and whatever you bring up here (minor mentions) doesn't add up to enough coverage to pass the GNG. Having done an interview and getting a song covered isn't enough. That story on Complex is just silly, and only a few paragraphs because there are no facts to cover ("[Ram and his manager] have managed to keep a low profile"--voluntarily?) Rap-up mentions him in one single sentence (a sentence about Drake and his banana). The Fader story is also about Drake (and Meek Mill), and has two sentences on Drake covering the song, with 13 words devoted to your subject. That's not significant discussion--it's not even discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than some links at News and browser and this obviously is not set for full article status. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this singer is pretty famous and is rising to popularity This guy is affiliated with Drake and his entourage. Of course there's going to be more information about him soon. His song "Sweeterman" generated interest in him. There's reliable information about him on this article and he attends Ryerson University. This article is more relevant than some other articles kept on Wikipedia.— Preceding comment added by 2606:6000:50C7:4200:FC55:4BBF:2D63:4316 (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - getting back to policy reasons, not enough in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Haerter

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E. Prod removed by article creator. "Petition" for MoH has not gone anywhere in several years, and it is unlikely that it will. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedians have not come into an agreement into what constitutes notability for soldiers. WP:PEOPLE states we should check WP:SOLDIER but that page is an essay rather than a guideline. Regardless, the essay states we should consider whether the soldier received the second highest award a nation can confer. This is the case for Haerter who received the Navy Cross. Looking at what we do rather than what we should or should not, one notices that it's quite common to host articles for Navy Cross recipients as we have a standalone category for them: Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). The category hosts more than 680 articles. Picking one randomly, such as Edward H. Ahrens, we notice it's common in Wikipedia to host articles for soldiers that only detail the event related to the award. Haerter differentiates himself from the rest as it's likely that his Navy Cross will be "upgraded" to a Medal of Honor in the future. As our guidelines are not clear it's difficult to assess whether Haerter deserves an article on its own. However, when looking at the number of references provided and their time horizon once notices that Haerter's notability extends throughout the years: he has been covered in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014. Even in 2015 he is still casually mentioned by the press [52]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Yale and Haerter did display extraordinary heroism warranting the award of the Navy Cross, they are one of nearly 6900 estimated recipients of the Navy Cross. The bill to upgrade their awards died in congressional committee in 2014. The consensus has been that being awarded a nations highest award would confer sufficient notability, but the second highest award does not. This would seem to be WP:BIO1E. Their deaths are tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you account for time horizon? Haerter continues to be covered by reliable sources years after his death. WP:BIO says that's enough to consider notability. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage still about the 1 Event. EricSerge (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that coverage by Fox News and Business Insider can be considered "local" coverage though. Besides, we don't care if the coverage is local or not. Our notability guidelines only care about independent coverage on time horizon. Haerter fulfills that criteria. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single second-level award is not generally regarded as enough to establish notability. We have deleted many recipients of such awards of various nationalities. I see no reason to make an exception here. If it is subsequently upgraded to the Medal of Honor then obviously he will become eligible for an article, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above about time horizon. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Every serviceman from the United States killed or decorated these days gets plenty of internet coverage. That doesn't make every one of them notable. It's just a symptom of the internet age. Is he any more significant than someone who won a Navy Cross in the Second World War just because he lived in the 21st century? Of course he isn't. That's why we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ROUTINE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Our notability guidelines don't care about date of birth, they only care about whether independent reliable sources cover the subject at hand. In this case they do. Period. Haerter satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then so does pretty much every other American serviceman killed or decorated in the internet age. Do you really believe that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SOLDIER. As Necrothesp has noted, the consensus is that one second-level award is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghofeyleh prayers

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

Does not seem supported by any reliable sources. No results on Google Books or Google Scholar. Only 27 results of low quality on Google web search. Anders Feder (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New References added But Mafatih al-Janan book is an authoritative source. Felestin1714 (Felestin1714) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless it can be improved because if not, we'll wait for a better article later. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is from reliable References.Article should not be removed. Felestin1714 talk 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot read the sources, but the article makes sense, despite the poor English. If verified, it would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because its significance can't be evaluated because the content is unintelligible. If this is a notable topic, the article would need to be rewritten from scratch by somebody who can write understandable English sentences. Sandstein 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Naama

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

I simply haven't found anything to suggest better sourcing and improvement and I'm not sure if this is why the first nominator nominated it. The only thing saving this would be archived and offline sources but I simply found nothing to even suggest this exists. This has hardly changed since October 2007 (started by SPA) aside from one blanking and few other contributions. Pinging Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We sometimes have lists of people by surname, effectively disambiguation pages. This is potentially such a list. However, since both those listed have no article, they are presumably NN. Accordingly, there is nothing worth keeping as a navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Now the article is well sourced and meets the notability criteria. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Brar

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

Subject does not meets WP:BLP and fails the notability criteria. Also the article lacks independent reliable sources; in current state the article have references either from self-published sources such as personal website, Facebook and partner sites which is the violation of Wikipedia's policy for use of reliable sources to establish notability. The article links to some reliable sources such as Times of India, which lacks significant coverage. In addition, earlier the draft was declined two times for failing Wikipedia's notability criteria and neutrality point of view. Draft submitter Coolkrc moved the draft to mainspace article even after AfC declines. His contributions to Wikipedia indicates conflict of interest or paid editing. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging the AFD Sanskari ^Hangout (With grateful help from <+Chess> in IRC) Chef Ranveer Brar is notable because, according to criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE, one can be "regarded as an important figure" to be notable. In this case, you can see from the Sanjeev Kapoor reference ^[1] , he is not just well regarded by Sanjeev Kapoor, an renowned Indian chef, he is also well regarded by many other organisations, such as the James Beard foundation. Chef Ranveer is at par with the top chefs of the country, along with Sanjeev Kapoor and Vikas Khanna. He was the co-judge of MasterChef India season 4 ^[2]. He has many more accolades to his credit, validation for which have been added to the article. The credits for which I could not find anything relevant were omitted to avoid guideline violations. Request if this challenge can be reconsidered and the article reinstated. I assure you this is not a paid edit or service. If the challenge is w.r.t the facebook page inclusion, that was just one instance, reason being there was no other news ref at that time. But today I have found and included an article link from the Economic Times and removed the FB reference. Kindly check and advise further. Coolkrc (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Coolkrc: The facts and the information on the article has to be cited with the reliable sources. Where we do not accept self-published sources (including that of archived). The major concern of Afd is the notability which is failing as per WP:BLP and WP:CREATIVE too (please elaborate how it is meeting the WP:CREATIVE criteria). In addition, as per WP:BLP and WP:GNG subject require coverage in depth. Also, it is request that please see How to contribute to Afd. (pining @Chess:). — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: thanks for your reply. This morning, I have edited and verified all the supportive links in the References section. Additionally some websites had archived or removed their articles, and I have amended those mentions. Have you checked the article post its latest revision please? They are all external sources. Please let me know. Coolkrc (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: WP:CREATIVE states "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I have already quoted a reference from Chef Sanjeev Kapoor's page to this effect. Chef Sanjeev Kapoor is an industry on his own and is world-famous!! I had also, when putting this article together for the very first time, added a whole bunch of external links which talked about Chef Ranveer to support my claim to his notability. But some admin asked me to remove that section completely!!! Coolkrc (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't help in establishing notability. You need to cite the facts with independent and reliable sources E.g. Ranveer Brar is important figure^{[citation needed]}. Most of the reliable sources that you have provided does not have significant coverage about the subject which is required as per WP:BPL. Please note: WP:BOMBARD does not helps the article to establish notability. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: going back to my first question, have you checked the article after I have revised it this morning? As mentioned, I found out only today that some websites had removed or archived the links I had quoted and I have since changed or omitted them. Whatever I have mentioned in that article is supported by a reliable external reference Coolkrc (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolkrc: Yes and several times but still lacks significant coverage and does not meets WP:BLP. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: Do you suggest i add multiple references for 1 statement? Sorry, I dont understand what you mean by coverage here. If you see Sanjeev_Kapoor it is such a limited article with basic references. I have followed that simple model, by sticking to known facts and supporting them with valid links. If you google Ranveer Brar, there are pages after pages talking about him and his work. So help me here, in what more I can add in terms of coverage. I have added all he has done and been part of till now!! Coolkrc (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at [53]. If those don't establish notability I don't know what will. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Resolve@Sanskari: I presume you have gone through the google search results link thankfully posted by Chess (talk) above. These are more than enough to establish Chef Ranveer's notability as a celebrity in his own regard. Obviously I cannot include these in a WIKI article!! Moreover, whatever info had a verifiable external source, I have mentioned and recently updated as well. This celebrity chef is also due to be part of I Can Do That (Indian TV series) starting 17th Oct. Please see the program WIKI page to confirm. Can I take your silence as acceptance, and if yes, can this issue please be favourably resolved at the earliest? TIA Coolkrc (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolkrc: You can actually include the articles that are listed in the Google News search results as references. Just not the search page itself. Also, if the nominator does not withdraw their nomination, then you'll usually have to wait at least 7 days for the discussion to end. Since he nominated on October 7th, you have until the 14th about till the deletion discussion is over. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Thank you for that :) I'll try add extra references where valid and possible. Coolkrc (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JAaron95: Hi..why has this been relisted please? I was hoping the discussion would be resolved by today. Is this part of the deletion review process? From my end, I have added all valid references to support each and every point, there is peer support reference, references from newspapers and important publications, plus there is an ocean of Google search results to validate this person's notability, for anyone who wants to do a background check. Please advise. @@Chess: Help! Coolkrc (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolkrc: Yes, a discussion is relisted so as to allow another 7 days for the discussionto take place and hence attain consensus among editors. As you can see above, there's not much of a consensus. And so, this discussion is relisted. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is now well referenced, and the number of TV shows the subject is/has been hosting, including being a judge on MasterChef India, establish plenty of notability IMO. I'm less impressed by the awards, as awards are ten a penny in this world, but the subject seems well notable without any need to take them into account. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus, though slim, was to keep after article's sourcing was improved. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui

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

Unfortunately this is another case where sources may not be easily accessible, if any exist, and without anything to confirm this information including after all this time, there's nothing to suggest keeping (We have different standards here so maybe Arabic Wiki can keep it where standards may not be as high and maybe someone can eventually improve it). This will need attention after all this time and definitely familiar attention if it is to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If we take the unreferenced article text at face value, he was a member of the Senate of the Kingdom of Libya, which would make him presumptively notable. But I cannot find any list of the members of the 1952 Libyan Parliament (especially the appointed upper house, to which this individual is claimed to belong). This is clearly an access and cultural bias issue; sources that list the members of the first Senate of the Kingdom of Libya must exist, but without access to them, our options are badly constrained. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soman, below, did an excellent job of providing exactly the sources that I was unable to locate. At some point, there will have to be an editorial decision about what the WP:COMMONNAME transliteration of his name should be. Our article is currently titled Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui, but uses Ahmed Rafiq al-Mahdawi in prose. The cited journal article below uses both Ahmed Refiq al Mahdevi and Ahmed Refik el-Mehdevi in its English abstract. That sort of thing didn't make sourcing easier... Regardless, that's an editorial issue, and not a concern for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. "Refik el-Mehdevi" is clearly a Turkish transliteration, al-Mahdawi would be closer to English practice. --Soman (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. AfD is not the place to ask for a clean-up of an article. And the notability of the individual is easily confirmed. For example, there's a book published about in in 1991, by the title "The Great National Poet: Ahmed Rafiq Almahadoui". Another book was published in 1988, titled "Rafiq, Poet of the Fatherland: Studies on the Libyan Poet Ahmed Rafiq Almhadaoui and the Modern Literary Movement in Libya". Another book was published in 1968, titled "Ahmed Rafiq Almhadaoui, Libyan Poet in the Modern Era", and so forth. Here is a street named after him in Benghazi, https://books.google.com/books?id=lPaNiy3YisIC&pg=PA129 . Here an academic reference (with summary in English) for his status as national poet and Member of Parliament; http://ktp.isam.org.tr/pdfdrg/D01777/2005_22/2005_22_CEVIZN.pdf --Soman (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo Management Group

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

Questionable notable company and I found no better sourcing aside from this and I considered PRODding but I thought comments would be better. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ather Habib

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

I hardly see how he is independently notable let alone any chances of improvement here as the best links I found were this, this and this (for what it's worth, I found the same results with the second link at WP:INDAFD). The only other alternative to deletion is simply redirecting to Myself Pendu as it seems this may have been his best known work and I'm not familiar with this to know what his television work was. Notifying tagger Masssly and author Deepcruze. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brookside. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Marot

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

Relatively minor British television actor; unable to find enough press to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely redirect to Brookside as it seems she was best known for this and had a long enough time to be noticeable for that but there's especially not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Some work, but doesn't appear to rise to the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Emarosa. Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Walden

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

Should be redirected to Emarosa. Subject fails to have enough notability on his own to warrant an article. reddogsix (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just redirected it yourself. This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirecting. Anyway, I've redirected it again and I'll revert any undone edits. If the redirect does not fly, I will support a merge to his band's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no reason to delete this article. The lead singer has enough notability to have his own article. There are characters that have full articles made for them, yet they are not needed. An example being Valentina Vostok Knuxfan 8:12 AM, 7 October 2015 (CDT)
Narutolovehinata5, Knuxfan has been contesting this (he also went to REFUND to contest it) and repeatedly reverting the redirect, which looks to be why RD6 brought it to AfD. It might be worthwhile to let this go through a full AfD because if it closes as a redirect we'll then have the ability to revert based on the AfD closure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, I'm sorry that I've repeatedly reverted the redirect, and that I went to REFUND, I don't fully understand this process, and don't really know when or how these things are taking place. I can't code or anything like that for shit. So, sorry about the misunderstanding, if it needs to be deleted because it's not an adequate page, then fine. But is there not a way that I can get the topic to have an article made after it? The reason why RD6 requested it for deletion(redirection) was because he said the topic failed to enough notability to warrant it's own article, and I disagree. If the case was with my errors, and it being an incomplete page(I wasn't done editing it, and learned to use the sandbox after the article was already set for deletion), then I'd be fine with that, as I could upload a complete and adequate page later on.(or could I not?) Knuxfan 9:55 AM, 7 October 2015 (CDT)

We can always move a copy to the draftspace at WP:AfC and let you work on it there. Basically what you need to do is show where Walden has received coverage for things outside of Emarosa. The easiest way to do this is by providing coverage for singles and albums he's released by himself, if applicable. The other way to do this is to show that his other band is notable enough for its own article, which can be more time consuming and difficult, especially since it's an indie band. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm good with that. Do sales count as notability? Or likes/views on videos or music produced by them? Or analytics taken from a page of their's, like website traffic and such? Or maybe even social media followings, or is that reaching? Knuxfan 3:31 PM, 7 October 2015 (CDT) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, stuff like that isn't considered to be something that would give notability on here. These are all things that can make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but popularity (which is what this boils down to, essentially) isn't something that automatically makes something notable. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Now having a large fandom can sometimes make someone qualify, but that fandom would have to be extensively reported on ala Trekkies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emarosa as there's simply nothing to suggest better and I say this instead of deleting because I hope this isn't going to simply be restarted again without thinking if it should first. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David de Burgh Graham

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

Not notable as a political candidate (fails WP:NPOL). Doubtfully notable as a software-whatever and a trainspotter. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable as a politician yet, but there aree significant independent sources on his software career and trainspotting (more for the former than the latter) presented in the article that establish his notability. His role in Internet Relay Chat is discussed in this news piece once featured on Linux.com [54], and there's an in-depth piece on him in the Linux Magazine [55]. Graham's trainspotting (S2E9) is discussed in a British Columbian educational television network on the other side of the country [56], and he is cited as an expert in a Globe and Mail article on new train developments [57]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this seems notable, acceptable and adequately sourced for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since he just won election as the new MP for Laurentides—Labelle (already mentioned on and linked from that page), he now qualifies as notable as a politician under item 1 of WP:NPOL, in addition to the above reasons from other aspects of his life. I can dig up some articles discussing his political candidacy if necessary (note some of them might be in French), but it's unambiguous that he has now been elected as a member of a national legislature. Pensezbien (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed, just elected as MP. Here's one source: Élections fédérales 2015: Majorité de 1 475 votes pour Graham Altenmaeren (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigaw ng Kabataan Coalition

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

Does not appear to be a notable advocacy group. A search for sources only results in minor mentions in news reports about them condemning an incident involving (now-resigned) Metropolitan Manila Development Authority chairman Francis Tolentino. Nothing actually on this organization. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines -related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.--RioHondo (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find sources to support notability for this group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Channel

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

Article appears to be about a television station that does not meet the general notability guidelines. Has no citations except for one to its own website. I propose we delete as non-notable. KDS4444^Talk 13:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User keeps adding non-notable companies. We cannot have an article for every TV or radio station in the world. There are probably hundreds of thousands of them. We should only have articles for the notable ones, and this one did not assert notability. It can be re-created when and if it is properly shown as notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poul Thorsen

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

Pseudobiography of a researcher accused of fraud and listed on HHS' most wanted fugitives list. Violates WP:BLPCRIME. Gets some coverage for vaccine-autism controversies. Recreated after PROD deletion and PRODed twice again. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. I found sources here, here, and here, but this seems to have the potential for WP:COATRACK. Per the Forbes article:

Since news of his indictment on 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering broke in April 2011, the conspiracy adherents have homed in on Thorsen as the mastermind of a fraud to convince people that vaccines are not causative in autism. Why Thorsen? Because he is the fourth author of seven on a paper showing no link between MMR and autism in a large population study of Danish children. The study and data, which are readily checked thanks to Denmark’s meticulous population registries, have not been called into question (through formal channels) or retracted.

I'm not convinced that this has the coverage necessary to write an appropriate BLP. - Location (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking substantial coverage, per BLPCRIME and BLP1E, noting that the article is indeed almost certainly an antivax stalking horse. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be a biography, something must actually be there about the person. The source presented is absolutely BLP1E/BLPCRIME material, and thus this BLP must be deleted ("Res delenda est") Collect (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with all deliberate speed As Users Collect and SzG point out, and a quick google reveals [58], this article by a SPA is a hit piece on a researcher whose work is disliked by some pretty intense anti-vaccine activists. An embarrassment for Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - Fails BLP1E & BLPCRIME. –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails BLP1E & BLPCRIME, amongst other concerns. Asav | Talk 21:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons above. If he was fourth author out of seven, his role in the paper was almost certainly minor. And I do not believe any of the other people on that wanted list have articles. Note that it says "awaiting extradition to the United States", but it does not mention any legal proceedings in Denmark. Roches (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:BLPCRIME, etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovans in France

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beside the missing content, it lacks basic structure from this kind of articles so far. What does "Kosovan" mean? Mondiad (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in France

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - my error. Jbh ^Talk 14:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one actually presents some history of the Greek presence in what is now France. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it also cites several on-topic books as sources, was created in 2007, and has been extensively edited by multiple users. This is quite unlike the other articles nominated, which were created recently by one editor and cite only census tables & foreign ministry pages. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Heery

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Her credits aren't that strong. The best seems to be five episodes of Jeeves and Wooster, and that's not enough by a long shot. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not have merits enough by her own and notability cannot be inherited from her partner. Sietecolores (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austrians in France

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

No indication the topic passes WP:GNG Jbh ^Talk 11:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been better to do a combined AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus: I would not object to combining them but I do not know how to do that which is why I cross linked them. The Dutch people in France article was nominated by another editor so not sure how that would work. There are likely other articles by the same editor like these, I stopped after a dozen AfDs. Jbh ^Talk 12:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individual AfDs is a bit chaotic, but then it might be the case that some of these turn out to be notable while others are not, which could make a single AfD complicated too. It's a tricky call. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, instructions on creating an AfD for multiple articles are at WP:MULTIAFD. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Other than the population estimate cited in the article, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage of this population in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely unsourced. The definition given as people of Austrian ancestry would probably include historic figures such as Louis XVII of France and Marie Thérèse of France who were descendants of the House of Habsburg. Dimadick (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In addition to being on the wrong end of a 2:1 opinions ratio, the "keep" side mostly fails to convincingly address the "we are not a newspaper" argument, with few people making arguments concerning the event's lasting significance. Sandstein 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 550

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Flight was never in danger. The incapacitation of someone at the controls of transportation, it happens, and unless that causes something more than a diversion, it isn't notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AIRCRASH: The accident was fatal to humans. Wide press coverage. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The accident wasn't fatal at all because there was no accident. The one death had nothing to do with the plane. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that WP:AIRCRASH "should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - The event received wide press coverage. If the article cannot be kept, it should be merged to American Airlines accidents and incidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it make more sense to merge to a list of mid-air pilot deaths? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by "WP is not news." The news media seems to think that something is more important because it happens on an airplane, but that's no reason for WP to follow the same standard. Borock (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS and, sadly, not a rare event it has happened many times before. Recency does not equal notability. SempreVolando (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're sort of correct in a sense. It isn't a rare event for a commercial flight to divert due to a medical emergency which you're right, however it is rare for the Pilot operating the aircraft to be the one with the emergency which doesn't happen often. Adog104 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Keep/Merge I know, I know the creator of the page wants to defend his article he wrote. No, that's not why I'm here. The page was created on a current aviation event which is important to know, the incident had wide media coverage (even outside the US), and this doesn't happen a lot. I understand this isn't a newspaper, however it is a notable event that happened. We could also transfer this article to the WikiNews (since looking into this more and since I'm new I just learned a thing and two).WP:AFD - WP:ATD-TRANS Adog104 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]
Keep: This will retain notability as it is rare that a member of the flight deck dies in flight. Although this is not the first occurrence, its rarity meets WP:N. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Write an article for Wikinews instead!!--Petebutt (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article up for deletion so it could be my simple mistake (I've only been here for a month/two). Refer to what I said previously which you could vote for a Transwikied which fits your comment better. Also forgot to add that I didn't mean to type the cause of death like a news article, read the source wrong, sorry. WP:ATD-TRANS Adog104 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Don't worry, nothing will be held against you. Look on the bright side, you have gone where angels fear to tread and survived:- the aircraft accident world of Wikipedia.--Petebutt (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Adog104 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Keep The fact that the pilot died mid-flight is significant, we don't have an article about the general concept, which is distinct from pilot error or suicide by pilot]. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only does this pass WP:GNG, sources note this is an "exceptionally rare" event. [59]--Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are at least three events in recent years which are effectively identical (one is arguably more serious as it occurred at a more critical flight phase):

- GB Airways pilot dies[60]

- Britannia Airways pilot dies[61]

- Continental Airlines pilot dies[62]

None of these events is even mentioned on Wikipedia. If this incident warrants an article, they all do. SempreVolando (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So shouldn't an article be granted admission since the incident hasn't been created on Wikipedia or create an article for that more notable incident? It's kind of weird that those incidents (or similar ones) haven't been listed or created on Wikipedia before even for their rare occurrences (unless there is an article somewhere, then please list it here). Whether this article is deleted or not, the least it could be granted would be a name change since it isn't listed. Adog104 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Comment It isn't weird. Airline flights that just happened are far more likely to find an editor who is willing to create an article than a airline flight that happened in the past. I'm one of the editors whose done articles on older crashes. In my case of the 45 accident articles I've created I did one for as far back as 1938 but I think the most recent accident article I did took place in 2002. WP:RECENTISM is the main reason for the focus on what has more recently happened. Another reason is sourcing an older crash can be difficult....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is not accident, but it is a captain death incident. If this article is keep, please use the new name "Captain death incident of American Airlines Flight 550".--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed, since most people note this doesn't involve other lives or the plane in danger, a name change could make this article more appropriate. Adog104 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Delete Not particularly notable. Can think of a few other similar incidents that aren't recorded in Wikipedia. The plane was never in danger, since commercial airline pilots are trained to fly a plane by themselves, there was no damage to anything, and none of the passengers were physically injured. Yny501 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I also considered deleting but compared to its neatness and sources, it may be acceptable as it attained some notability and attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and rename to Death of Micheal Johnston with leaving a redirect. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable or unusual it happens all the time, as something that is not unusual it is not worth mentioning anywhere else as this is not a news blog. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I got to step in, but this doesn't happen all the time. It may happen to pilots in plane crashes or other situations, but pilot illness resulting in death mid flight does not happen all the time. Like most sources linked in the article and examples provided by others, the events happen rarely. Adog104 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Delete - not really notable, it happens a lot, this is not really warranted as a news blog. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @EurovisionNim:, ASSUMING that this article should not exist, why should it not be merged into American Airlines accidents and incidents or American Airlines? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion versus merging

@Borock:, @SempreVolando:, @Petebutt:, @Yny501:, ASSUMING that this article should not exist, why should it not be merged into American Airlines accidents and incidents? @Oiyarbepsy:, I don't think that there is an article about "mid-air pilot deaths". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it does not meet the criteria for inclusion established for those sections - at WP:AIRCRASH. SempreVolando (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually, it is an "incident" that took place at American Airlines, thefefore, it should be included. Nowhere is WP:AIRCRASH mentioned at that article. At the very least, it should redirect to American Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a list of "incidents" involving American Airlines including it there would be better than keeping the article. No one can deny it was an incident covered by reliable sources.Borock (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Petebutt:, @Yny501:,@AKS.9955:@Sideways713:@Müdigkeit:@Clarityfiend: I ask again, ASSUMING that this article should not exist, why should it not be merged into American Airlines accidents and incidents or American Airlines? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the list should only be accidents involving a hull loss or notable non-hull losses. If this article is deleted, then neither would apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - American Airlines accidents and incidents does not say "hull loss" nor "notable non-hull losses", and this is an American Airlines flight, so merging or redirecting with history per WP:CHEAP to one of these articles would absolutely be appropriate. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AIRCRASH lays out what is notable enough for inclusion on accident list. 550 doesn't fit the criteria....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - "Nowhere is WP:AIRCRASH mentioned at that article. At the very least, it should redirect to American Airlines." --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If this were to be redirected (low chanced, but deletion is favored), it would more or less be belonging to U.S. Airways page since the aircraft was operated by U.S. Airways, but owned by American Airlines (Note: U.S. Airways has since merged fully with American Airlines recently ceasing operations which previously lead to the American Airlines Group founded back in 2013).Adog104 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Reply - If the entire discussion before and after the relist is considered, it is steering toward No Consensus. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - ...Not really? I mean deletion is far greater on the second and the first has more keeps, but all together it votes towards deletion. Either way it will be deleted or the absolutely the least could be a Wiki-transfer (to WikiNews) or a merge; and the closing decides above all else. I would favor a Wiki-transfer the most now. Adog104 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet sst ✈ 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was not an accident and merely an incident. WP:NOTNEWS - not everything (incident) that gets a news article / attention can have a Wikipedia page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Sideways713 (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will probably soon be forgotten, short media coverage only.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Passengers die on airliners, captains die on ships, bus drivers have heart attacks, etc. If no further fatalities occur as a result, they aren't notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone dies a natural death at work. If it wasn't in a plane, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Seems that it wouldn't be notable - the fact it was on a plane doesn't make it notable. The coverage in the news is typical of the "oh, interesting" to fill up space. Will there be any coverage of this a month from now, 2 years from now? no. Notability isn't temporary; this event was certainly temporary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per WP:NOTNEWS. A medical emergency happened, the plane was diverted, and everyone but the captain lived happily ever after. It's not an accident, so it can't be merged to a list of accidents. I don't think routine incidents like this should have their own article. Yes, the news media did report on it, but we are not beholden to create an article on every single topic that briefly bubbles to the top of Google News. This is more applicable to Wikinews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be relegated to encyclopedia dramatica. Fudpukker (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above, but could be mentioned in 2015 in aviation, for example. Brandmeister^talk 11:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could also go along with redirecting with history to 2015 in aviation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jax 0677: The individual page does not need to exist (a redirection is pointless in my opinion), so I would suggest it be added to part of 2015 in aviation, or it can be included in some part of the pages of American Airlines or US Airways.

Delete I agree with the above comment. It doesn't need its own article; it's not particularly notable as the FO took over the flight and the safety of the aircraft and passengers were never in danger. It was a medical emergency rather than a flight emergency. smrgeog (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment - My final comment, while searching air crashes on Wikipedia (1997-2010), I found that there are other Wikipedia articles that have the same context as Flight 550:

United Airlines Flight 826 - Passenger dies of turbulence injuries, lands safely.
Olympic Airways Flight 417 - Passenger dies of second hand smoke, lands safely, aftermath following lawsuit.

Which by these two alone, Flight 550 seems to fit snug in between them in context, however this event is more rare, like many have already established in the news.

After researching, I realized that it can't be classified as an "accident" since the person, inside the aircraft, suffered injuries from natural causes (which is according to Annex 13, section (a.) enforced by the Chicago Convention). However this can still be classified as an "incident" since it was an occurrence that happened inside the aircraft mid-flight, it was a notable event covered by numerous sources (including outside the United States), and it is still believed to be a rare occurrence that doesn't happen often as accidents. At this time I did not edit the article as much since the AFD, however I left on the talk page more information that could be added (if the sources coincide with NOT NEWS). Thank you all for your feed back too (whether against or in favor). Adog104 (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]

Comment This flight has no lawsuit nor is related to the setting (an aircraft), whereas turbulence is a part of aviation. If there was clear proof that aircraft ventiliation systems caused the death of the pilot or something like that, then the two above examples would be applicable to this scenario, but since the pilot's death is not recorded as being related to aviation, nor does it have any legal implications, I think a delete would be the most appropriate. As for 'covered outside the United States', many other aircraft incidents that are not recorded on Wikipedia have been as well - just because two flights are on Wikipedia doesn't mean 20 more similar aren't, and the two examples given may also be deleted in the future. Honestly, pilots dying mid-air isn't that rare, which is sad, but just the way it is. It's not necessarily a 'rare occurence'. Yny501 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (India)

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

List of Indian good looking people who have appeared on an Indian edition of a periodical doesn't seem to be much notable failing WP:GNG. The references are all to PR websites, self-published pages, fan-forums and such non-RS sources. Note: The original and main contributor is blocked for socking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This list is so unnecessary. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim-um delete. This is so trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 user likes this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. sst ✈ 13:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. Which is likely also what the WP:NOTINTERESTING and WP:TRIVIAL !voters above intended. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Adults Only (2016 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD ended in a consensus to merge, however the merge has never been performed. Subsequent to that AfD, production of the movie has been cancelled. Given that circumstance, I have taken this back to AfD. Cancel the merge and change to delete. Safiel (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As before - just because it was cancelled it does not mean that the story of the movie and its cancellation are not notable matters for the director's article. ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HEY:WP:INDAFD: "For Adults Only" "Faisal Saif"]

Merge to Faisal Saif... where we may use the many sources speaking about his plans for making this film to speak of it there. Just as instructed by WP:NFF notability found through coverage may still have a home here even for unmade or cancelled projects... and the director's article is the perfect place to speak of it. That no one did the merge after the last AFD is sad, but not a reason to not do it or delete it because it was not done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And nominator, what did you gather the article's tag intended?

Were you simply WP:IMPATIENT? Or was it you felt no desire to assist in a merge? Huh? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals with powers of a Constable

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

Delete for lack of sources, it appears to be all original research. This is a list and fails WP:Stand-alone lists: which states: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This list lacks adequate criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish those criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and lastly fails to provide encyclopaedic context. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It is best to remove it. So far as I can tell this information if properly cited would belong, not as a list, but as a discussion comparing the various duties and powers of police and quasi-police officials in the UK, as such it would have a totally different title, or be part of another article. I am sure that there are Police Science textbooks that would prove valuable in such an endeavor. No redirect to Constable as it is not a likely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if this were to be kept, it's a huge mess. On a substantive note, it is a list of comparing other citrus fruits to oranges. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now having references added. The people with powers of a constable are a clearly defined group. To add them to the Constable article wouldn't make sense and would be confusing. The public are generally unaware of what employees other than the Police do and this is a source of tension. This article is only designed to clarify this. Leopheard (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2015 UTC

Constable powers are not uniary. The powers of these various officials vary considerably. A list is not a useful presentation for disparate information. No one is suggesting at this point adding the "list" to the Constable article. What makes you think that people with powers of a constable are a clearly defined group. Do you have a citation to a reliable source that says that? My experience is that neither the "powers of a constable" nor the class of officials with arrest powers are clearly defined. Often they are individually defined, but not as a group. For example, the citation added to the article for "special constables" says nothing at all about their powers. --Bejnar (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some positions in the UK have their powers of search and seizure legally defined as "the powers and privileges of a constable". But the use of that phrase in law is not a topic. It does not, and cannot, satisfy WP:LISTN, because there has been no nontrivial, reliable, third-party discussion of the merits of that particular verbiage. And by the article's own admission, the phrasing is what matters; other positions that have search and seizure powers in common with a constable are not included if they are do not share the same legislative definition. And, of course, none of this applies in any other country, where the position of constable may have more (or fewer) powers, shared with entirely disjunct lists of other offices. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[b]Merge[/b] The deletion of this article will not clarify the confusion that exists with the public when it comes to an individual who is clearly not a Constable but is exercising the powers of. "How is he able to do that when he's not a bobby?". There are countless examples in the media where trading standards have been obstructed, Environment Agency bailiffs or PCSOs assaulted, not to mention a plethora of inaccurate articles explaining the difference between a PCSO and PC yet have many inaccuracies. It is only pertinent to the law enforcement area on Wikipedia to at least cover the basics on the differences and where they come from. Also, there are plenty of other places that use the term Constable for law enforcement e.g. Texas. As whether they have Constables and those with the power of, I am unsure as yet leopheard (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simple anser is No. See WP:NOLEGAL. The more complex answer is, as I said above, constable powers are not uniary. One might be able to do a large table, just for England and Wales, that listed a number of specific powers cross-indexed against various offcials, but that would not be this article, which as detailed above has a number of problems including, but not limited to, an over-broad scope, lack of reliable criteria, and a basic failure to understand legislative delegation. Just for fun, you might read the Texas constable article and see just how different they are from the English version. --Bejnar (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHS (high schools)

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

AHS (high schools), BHS (high schools), CHS (high schools), DHS (high schools), EHS (high schools), FHS (high schools), GHS (high schools), HHS (high schools), IHS (high schools), JHS (high schools), KHS (high schools), LHS (high schools), MHS (high schools), NHS (high schools), OHS (high schools), PHS (high schools), QHS (high schools), RHS (high schools), SHS (high schools), THS (high schools), UHS (high schools), VHS (high schools), XHS (high schools), YHS (high schools) ZHS (high schools), AHS (schools), BHS (schools), HHS (schools), and NHS (schools)

WHS (high schools) was recently deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHS (high schools). The others should be deleted to. No one is gonna search for a high school by typing in the abbreviation. Voortle (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and then some. Several of these explicitly state that many of the schools involved are not generally known by their initials. WP:DABABBREV is the controlling guideline here, and it's pretty clear as to what the outcome should be. Also, it may be worth considering four related articles along with this, named "(schools)" instead of "(high schools)": AHS (schools), BHS (schools), HHS (schools), and NHS (schools). AHS (high schools) redirects to the (schools) version, and the (high schools) versions of BHS, HHS, IHS, LHS, and SHS all redirect to their equivalent core disambiguation page. There's no compelling reason why those redirects should need a separate trip to RFD, however. And, needless to say, the various xHS core disambiguation pages will need tidied up after all of this is done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous Afd decision. No difference between WHS and all these others. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:ACRONYMTITLE and clean-up per WP:DABABBREV. If nom will include the four related, AHS (schools), BHS (schools), HHS (schools), and NHS (schools), and relist for seven days, I will !vote delete for those four as well. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20150512233128/http://sanjeevkapoor.com/Starchef/Ranveer-Brar

[2] ttp://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food/master-of-spices-4/

[1]

[2]