Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 October	30 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. KTC (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuț Silaghi

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

Does not seem to be an important person (vanity article?). References seem very weak but I'm bringing it here because I can't read Romanian. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find anything that establishes his notability. Only found a few articles about another Ionuț Silaghi, who is a high school student. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Random biographical ephemera cannot mask the fact that the subject blatantly fails WP:BIO. - 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and look for sources - 17:40, 3 November 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autenticlllll5 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not meet notability criteria per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. Of note is that a great deal of promotional content was removed from the article after this was nominated for deletion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archivo Diseño y Arquitectura

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

Moved from Draft space, reads like a promotional piece for the company, fails WP:NOTPROMOTION JMHamo (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issues concerning this entry have been addressed through proper edits and thus I recommend to KEEP the entry. Mdiaztuf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archivo Diseño y Arquitectura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a company, but a cultural non-profit. The purpose of the entry is informational, not promotional. Mdiaztuf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Mdiaztuf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. By searching online, I've found two reliable sources that significantly cover this location. With those it should meet the notability guideline. I'll add those sources in later. Appable (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy if needed until better improvement can be made. Pinging Vrac (como estamos?) SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the metropolismag source that's cited is good, plus a milenio article, other stuff in English (which in and of itself is an indication of notability; it's not just a locally-known entity). Pues estamos vivos, ya es mucho... Vrac (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issues have been addressed and the entry has valuable information on a notable cultural institution.Marioballe (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)— Marioballe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough and reliable sources, passes notability guideline. Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)User has been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Małgorzata Tracz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak delete (but postpone decision until late October's elections). I see one regional source of some reliability ([1]), but as a politician, she and her party are pretty much a non-entity, and the sources are lacking. However, I'd suggest userfying rather than deleting, sooner or later she may be elected to the national parliament, and thus become notable. In fact, the elections are this weekend, so postponing the decision on this for a week or two may solve our problems (if she is elected, this should be kept immediately). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify Seems like an article that popped up for political reasons. I can't read the sources, but seeing as other editors have said they are weak, I would agree that this article should be deleted. I also believe that the article should be deleted as soon as consensus is found. Octobers Polish elections should have no bearing on the validity of an article even if there is a chance for the party to be elected. If it needs to be recovered in the future due to that party being nominated, so be it. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. With a recommendation to consider following Czar's advice and using the sources found here to add a mention of UOX to Ultima Online and then redirect this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UOX

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

Non-notable video game software with no coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CZAR: I don't know if it counts as significant coverage, but here are some secondary sources that have mentioned UOX:

Gamespot article from December 1st, 1997 - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ultima-goes-offline/1100-2468234/
PC World (Polish edition) mentioned UOX in an article in April 1998 - http://www.pcworld.pl/artykuly/297588/Gry.newsy.html
Computer Gaming World magazine (December 2003 printed issue, page 99 - freely downloadable in PDF format at http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=2003&pub=2&id=233 or http://pdf.textfiles.com/zines/CGW/), mentions UOX in a section called "The Gray Area - Fun With Emulators" where the topic of server emulation is covered briefly.
makeuseof.com had an article about online server emulation/private servers on October 8th, 2014, where UOX was mentioned - http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/is-it-illegal-to-play-world-of-warcraft-on-a-private-server/

Xoduz (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is brief, but could warrant a mention in the main Ultima Online article's mods section. PC World and CGW both have one-sentence descriptions of UOX that can be used as backup, though I imagine the first source covers it. Not sure whether Makeuseof is a reliable source. Anyway, thanks for pulling these. I'd support a redirect to another page that mentions UOX if there's a good place to put it based on these sources. czar 21:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - poorly sourced game advertisement. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. the references do not seem sufficiently substantial. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Asian Men's Junior Handball Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Fails WP:GNG 73.138.114.150 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How and based on what exactly ? It looks like this IP only enjoys to vote for delete. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to largely discount the "keep" opinions arguing for the inherent notability of ambassadors, because that is a field well covered by our notability guidelines, which do not provide for such a presumption of notability. Sandstein 07:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Bolduc

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. all I could find for coverage is merely confirming he held posts. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. I doubt that this is the same Canadian Jean-Pierre Bolduc who was a director of an international humanitarian assistance program, and author of "Natural Disasters in the Third World: The Myths and the Role of the Media" (1987). He also has passing mention here and there. But even if he is, together they do not have significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a primary source biography of him, in a PDF backgrounder for an African visit by Michaëlle Jean, which stated that his background was in humanitarian assistance and development — so there's at least a stronger possibility than you seem inclined to believe, obviously pending further research, that it is the same person. CIDA is actually a division of DFAIT, so that's a completely plausible career path. He was also, for what it's worth, Canada's ambassador to Senegal at the time of Jean's tour, which means that the article isn't getting updated very often. That said, a person doesn't get over a Wikipedia inclusion bar on primary sources alone, so neither of those facts guarantee him a keep just because of the PDF — but it's a definite "more research needed" case. I'll fire up the ProQuest right now, and report my findings as soon as I can. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This DFAIT press release attributes Bolduc with a CIDA background, including its International Humanitarian Assistance Division, which means it is the same person. ProQuest came up mostly dry, for the record; I found one source from 1986 for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc, director of the Canadian International Development Agency's international humanitarian assistance branch", but nothing else at all. But sourcing for his ambassadorial postings does exist in French language sources from African media on a Google search. (Wikipedia only requires our content to be in English — the sources can be in any language that any Wikipedian has the ability to translate if asked.) So when you couple the sources that exist for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc Congo" with the ones that exist for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc Senegal" (which likely weren't previously considered, due to this article's failure to include the Senegal posting at all), I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree about the substantialness of the coverage, but you have just made this a "no consensus" result, hence kept. --Bejnar (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Veteran ambassador to a number of countries. Significant enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he's only been resident ambassador to 3 countries. Hardly remarkable. And a 10 year long career is not really veteran. There are countless ambassadors with 20+ year careers. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - diplomats are in a position of prestige, somewhat equivalent to high-level postings, and receive frequent media coverage as such, especially in the country they are sent to. [2], [3], [4] —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the first 2 sources he's actually not the subject of the coverage, he is merely stating the Canadian government position. These sources do not add to his notability. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - diplomats and ambassadors are not inherently notable. As politicians, they usually fail WP:NPOL, since they are appointed, not elected. Usually if a diplomat/ambassador achieves notability it is due to other factors in their life, not the simple fact that they were appointed to a foreign duty post. Currently, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this individual passes WP:GNG. A few passing mentions in News, zero in Newspapers (all the hits there are for other people with this same name); in books, there is one with an article by him, but that doesn't go to notability, all the rest are trivial mentions; same on Scholar, and a single trivial hit on Highbeam. Zip on JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not politicians, so WP:NPOL doesn't apply at all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Ambassadors are the highest level of their profession, and therefore ought to be considered as notable--just a are professional athletes. Certainly do not delete without a proper search in Francophone sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are the highest level of their profession, and therefore ought to be considered as notable absolutely not true, there is no inherent notability of ambassadors as proven by well established consensus. secondly, my search for sources included francophone sources. the person in question is Canadian which would also appear in English sources. have you actually searched for sources WP:MUSTBESOURCES? LibStar (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are considered notable on Wikipedia if they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. They're not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, if the sourcing for them is purely primary or entirely non-existent. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etihad Player Of The Month

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

Contested PROD. WP:FANCRUFT and does not avoid WP:Recentism JMHamo (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is an official trophy given out by the club. Thursby16 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable award. Can't find a single independent source about it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. True award from the Club. [5] TheFootieGuy (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Striking !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TheFootieGuy was created on 29 October 2015 at 21:10... obviously a sock. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Account was blocked for violating WP:SOCK by an admin at 21:28, 29 October 2015, so this "keep" !vote should be discounted. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Man City for this award means that you have verified its existence, but you have not proved that it is a notable award. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable award, no independent sources. WP:GNG clearly failed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fancruft. Giant Snowman 09:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious cruft. A non-notable internal fan-based award that has garnered no significant reliable coverage outside of primary sources to even begin to satisfy GNG. The keep arguments above amount to nothing more than WP:ITEXISTS. Fenix down (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though it includes their best ever player. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better than Super Bob? Surely you jest ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha!! And just look at the Belgians!! EddieWaring123 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT as already noted. Jim Carter 07:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Thursby16 (talk). I think it is an important trophy to me, so it can given out by the club, but it is a Non-notable award, no independent sources. --Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it is non-notable? That makes literally no sense at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Wayne

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and TOOSOON. Also delete Live That Song, his debut EP, if it hasn't charted. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No better improvement obviously here. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. In any case delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:54, 31 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. Can be userfied for improvement on request. The later "Keep" opinions are ... very questionable, and are discounted. Sandstein 07:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Whitman

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

~~BLP that fails WP:BASIC, being very hard to find any reliable secondary sources in a search. NottNott talk|contrib 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Move to Draftspace in light of BOZ's comment below. NottNott talk|contrib 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person, definitely failing WP:BASIC. samtar ^{t} 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable (edit: or move to draft and redirect per others). Unfortunately I am not finding reliable sources. It's all social media, self-published, various gamer stuff. Also the main source used in the article is Designers and Dragons a book published by Mongoose Publishing which is the same company that publishes Traveller, a game which Whitman helped design - thus conflicted for establishing notability. The rest of the sources are primary. -- GreenC 02:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify so that it can be worked on. I have to disagree with Green Cardamom's assessment of Designers & Dragons as a valid source for this article. While it is true that Mongoose was one of several companies that has published Traveller (along with GDW, Impermium, Steve Jackson Games, QLI/RPGRealms Publishing, and Far Future Enterprises), they were not the game's publisher any longer by the time Designers & Dragons was published in 2011 (Far Future's version was being developed by then). The game had a few editions (and a decade or so) between "Marc Miller's Traveller" on which Whitman had his only involvement in Traveller, and the publication of the Mongoose version of Traveller. In writing a book for Mongoose, the author Shannon Appelcline may have focused on Traveller history in more detail for the company who was recently the game's publisher, but even if Mongoose had something to benefit from such a promotion of the game, I can argue that the book was not promoting Whitman at all. In fact, when I wrote this article, I toned down some of Appelcline's criticism of Whitman, and even one portion such as this had been removed from the article. So the link between Whitman and Mongoose is very, very tenuous and require a lot of indirect relationships and leaps of logic to be made. Designers & Dragons was republished and expanded by Evil Hat Publications last year - a company with no connection to Traveller at all so far as I know - and included all the information from the Mongoose edition, including all the criticism of some of his activities. In fact, it says a little more about Whitman which I have not yet added to the article. I switched the citations in the article to the Evil Hat Games edition of Designers & Dragons, if that helps. In my opinion, it is a solid source. The challenge here is that we need more. I am confident that they exist, in gaming magazines or something written by experts in the field, because he has been controversial, but the challenge is that unless you actually own a copy of such publications it may be very difficult to find that out from just internet searches. Which can be very frustrating - it is easy to have a subject for which plenty of legitimate sources do exist, but which are out of your reach at the moment. BOZ (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: I'd be in favour of moving it to draftspace as per your suggestion as there's clearly a lot of information most non-specialist editors are missing out on. The article will need a huge makeover, but this is probably the best for most editors concerned about the article in its present state. NottNott talk|contrib 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: I think the article needs to be updated and kept if for no other reason that Ken Whitman has been noted recently of bilking many people out of money via at least 6 fraudulent Kickstarter campaigns. Ken Whitman has been noted in the RPG industry, and not necessarily positively, as a minor contributor here or there. Without resources like Wikipedia, he would be allowed to control far too much of the information about his past. There are sources other than Designers & Dragons and Mr. Whitman, such as this site CStogdill (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Imperium Games -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC) meh, this is not a great option either, as Imperium Games suffers from a similar lack of evidence of notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace and redirect the base page name to Imperium Games pending improvement of the article. bd2412 T 00:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep or Draftify -- User GalakStarscraperArticle should stand. Ken Whitman in the gaming world has left a long black mark that has actually put at least 3 other businesses out of business. He has done this by too many people being willing to cover up or remove those trying to honestly post about him. Bernie Madoff gets a page for destroying people's fortunes ... Ken Whitman deserves one as well as he has done the same to thousands of people just with different methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalakStarscraper (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- that is not a valid rationale at all -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Since it seems that Mr. Whitman [redacted link to blog making defamatious claims about a living person] may become the second Kickstarter creator to be sued by a state (Kentucky) Attorney General] for lack of results, I think he is certainly "notable." At the very least, I think consideration of notability may be premature. If nothing comes of it, then we can consider the matter at a later date. --Roland 18:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvolz (talk • contribs)

we do not keep articles based upon some random bloggers belief that something might happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single source and frankly I am dubious of his involvement in Imperium (which would be his most notable achievement given its involvement with Traveller) given that I cant find anywhere else that states he co-founded it. Our own article on Imperium (while not useful as a source) does not mention him at all. Indicating the sources for Imperium have little to say about him. Not adverse to Draftifying it as per Rvolz above though, the kickstarter lawsuits are only going to increase... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- There are far too many people who need to know what is going on with this individual, since he has allegedly taken so much money from them and given nothing in return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.51.41 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mastering Jenkins

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

Self-published e-book. No indication that the subject satisfies WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 19:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction as a print version does exist. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 22:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book is not self published. This book is published through an international publisher Packt. Its in Paperback format not only in ebook. Please consider not deleting this page as it matches in structure similar pages from other tech books on wikipedia and provides an equal value. Furthermore based on wikipedias rules:

Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Additionally the article states: Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcallister80 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcallister80: Our article on Packt describes it as a "print-on-demand publishing company". Print on demand can be considered a form of self-publishing. The actual deletion argument, however, relates to notability as indicated by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources – something that neither this article, nor anything that I have seen elsewhere, demonstrates. A Google search for "Mastering Jenkins" + the author's name turns up only 16 hits, and I have yet to find any detailed discussion of the book anywhere online.

You correctly point out that the notability guideline for books contains a few caveats regarding academic and technical works, but what of the specialised indicators for notability suggested in the second half of that paragraph? Has anyone cited this book? Is it considered influential?

Am I correct in assuming, based on your username, that you are the author of this book? Super Mario Man ( talk ) 22:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperMarioMan: The provisions outlined within the Wikipedia guidelines provide special provisions for technical and academic works. These works do not need to necessarily meet the notability guidelines indicated for traditional literature. The important section of these guidelines is indicated below:

"For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail." The key word above is 'notice' not necessarily the same as 'notable'. If we are to begin limiting academic and scientific literature from wikipedias database the essence and original intent of the wikipedia concept "The sum of all human knowledge" would be null and void. This would make wikipedia no better than a common user-forum. In addition to this argument there are hundreds of technical books listed within Wikipedia that match the same basic concept as this one. Do we begin wholesale deleting those pages as well? Where is the line drawn? What is the specific criteria…. ? How can a book gain notoriety without being noticed first? This argument seems much like the chicken and the egg.

EOM.

You're quoting WP:TEXTBOOKS and the general basis of that is to look at who has published the book, how widely used the book is, how many printings it's been through, and so on. The guideline there basically argues that a textbook will be notable if it has been through at least 5-6 printings, is widely used at colleges throughout at least one country (if not multiple countries), and is published by a well-known and well-respected academic publisher. Just being an academic work in and of itself does not mean that something will pass guidelines and the unsaid thing about this guideline is that an academic text that would pass this guideline would be very likely to have some sort of footprint in reliable sources, even if it's just that the book is widely cited as a reliable source in footnotes. It's extremely unlikely that a book would pass these guidelines without some sort of coverage in reliable sources independent of the book, author(s), or publisher.

As far as gaining notice, the problem is that while it's difficult for independent and/or self-published books to gain coverage, they must still have received coverage in some sort of reliable source, enough to pass guidelines. Frustrating? Yes. I'll openly say that I've been frustrated with Wikipedia's guidelines in the past, but these guidelines have evolved over the years because there has been a lot of abuse of the system. Because of this, notability must be established prior to the article being written. This is unlikely to change any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This very, very newly published book (October 27, 2015) doesn't seem to have gained any sort of coverage in independent and reliable sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable, like newspaper articles, academic journal reviews, or the like. For that matter, I also cannot see where the book is widely used in classrooms at this point in time. Same goes for citations in academic works, although that's an obvious given. This might change over time, given that this book released about a week ago, but we have to judge notability in the here and now. Just existing as a book is not enough, regardless of whether or not it's a mainstream, academic, or technical work, and all articles must assert notability in some form or fashion. As far as self-publishing or publishing on demand goes, that isn't a reason for deletion and I don't think that the nom meant it like that, but it is usually a sign that sourcing will be difficult to find, if it exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument on this matter is that there is no reasonable way to have notoriety without getting noticed first. This is a chicken and the egg type conundrum. If the position of the wikipedia community is that books should not be included (even though pertaining to an academic subject) based on a lack of not being heard of we are in the end simply stifling innovation and forward thinking thought. This rule should also then apply to the hundreds of other books which have wikipedia pages. To the point of the book being self published. The book was not actually self published. PoD (print on demand) simply means that when a buyer purchases it it is printed fresh each time instead of in large runs. In addition the book is actually a part of the 'Mastering' series which is well known within Packt Publishing. The book itself was peer-reviewed, had a technical editor, and had copywrighters who all follow the same publishing process as say books from Orielly. I still however fail to see how say this particular argument of notoriety applies to academic books. The wikipedias guidelines are just that 'guidelines'. They even admit that this would be too restrictive for academic publications. Why can't common sense prevail here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.108.42 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet again (I was the admin who deleted this as spam first time around and have seen nothing to change my mind). Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform, and it's not our job to help you "get noticed". As a tertiary source, we only reproduce material which has already been published by reliable sources; if no sources on a topic exist, then we don't cover that topic. This is one of our most fundamental core principles, and unfortunately you're not going to get that changed; if you can't point to reviews that show that other people consider it important, then we can't consider it important regardless of whether we want to. ‑ iridescent 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a topic to have an article on Wikipedia it must pass WP:GNG or in this case, Wikipedia:Notability (books). There is no evidence presented that the subject of this article passes either of these. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, re "This rule should also then apply to the hundreds of other books which have wikipedia pages." Sorry but the WP:WHATABOUTX is irrelevant to afds. oh, also Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in search engines shows that it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shotaro Ashino

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

Fails WP:GNG. A professional wrestler with who only debuted earlier this year. Works for a mid-level Japanese promotion with no accomplishments to his name. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to indicate notability as per nom. NottNott talk|contrib 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth third-party coverage to establish basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheyene Gerardi

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

The article is completely lacking independent, reliable sources concerning personal details of the subject or claims concerning her career, and the few sources which are cited are all primary (personal/organizational Web sites), Youtube and/or unreliable. The article makes unsourced or poorly sourced claims concerning interactions with other personalities, including an unspecified "relationship" with Eddie Murphy, that may constitute violations of WP:BLP. Her primary claims to fame seem to be a) having "no relatives" (meaning living relatives?), b) surviving a rare form of cancer, and c) having been featured in "a series of sexy pictures". None of these are unique or make the subject notable in absence of citations that show her to be so. (Nominated for PROD, but an IP who has recently edited the article removed the nomination.) General Ization ^Talk 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was ~~created~~ (Looks like it was created back in 2010 by a single use account but there is no way to link it to the PR account.) by an account abusing multiple accounts and based on the master name one which is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. Fails WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/45managementinc. Jbh ^Talk 19:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another candidate for G11: " She has one of the most beautiful faces and bodies..." etc... Just speedy deleted out of eswiki. Vrac (talk) 21:24, 31 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 06:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumru Ağıryürüyen

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

Fails WP:N. Whole article is based on a single source. Musa Talk 22:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sourcing can be found as I simply see nothing to suggest obvious keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have improved article for clarity and referencing and will continue to do that; it looks to have been written originally on the Turkish-language Wikipedia and is not well-sourced there either. Article is useful in showing context of mandolin use in Middle East, which is currently under-reported in Mandolin article.Jacqke (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the original nomination to delete indicated that the article was based on one source. It now has more than 20 sources, and at least one is a news source. Searches for the artist, along with specific songs or albums or groups she played with turn up a lot of links, showing that she does have online notability.Jacqke (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The many citations added to this article appear to be links to places where the subject is named as having performed on an album. Sources need to discuss the subject of the article in depth, not merely mention the subject's name in passing. Article would need multiple references which discuss the subject in some kind of depth to be retained. KDS4444^Talk 04:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and particularly KDS4444's assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rotator Survey

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

Unsourced article about a piece of software, I can't find any reliable sources that cover it. A similar article (sourced only to the company's own website) was prodded a couple of weeks ago and has now been recreated. Creator appears to have a WP:COI. McGeddon (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Your Argument

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

Doesn't seem to have met WP:BCAST. The claim of large audience (heard nationally) is not verified, has no established history and is not an unique program. Guess this should be deleted. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I helped created the Sport Your Argument Page, so I would vote to Keep it. The show's replay podcast averages over 1000 downloads, as you can see on their homepage. The usual rule of thumb is 10x more live listeners than archived listeners. While the show is the most listened to on an all sports podcast channel of Blog Talk Radio, it's also the main weekly show of a TuneIn Radio station. While I would have to reach out to the show for verification, on October 7th the show released their Top 5 metropolitan areas of listeners which was (according to them): Miami, Seattle, San Jose, Washington DC and Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSports1982 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I would Keep this page as well, they posted their audience stats a few months ago on the website blog, showing the reach of the audience. I heard of the show on my TuneIn Radio Station even though I live in Seattle, Washington. Sprts4566 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Sprts4566[reply]

Note. WikiSports1982 (talk · contribs · count) and Sprts4566 (talk · contribs · count) are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiSports1982.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JAaron95 this is M. Potter one of the hosts and creators of Sport Your Argument. I can confirm that our show has over 1,346 downloads off our website this week, excluding the listens when our show airs on Blog Talk Radio and TuneIn Radio. We can also confirm the cities above and if you would like any additional information please feel free to reach out to us using the contact information found on our website. SYA was very pleased to be a part of Wikipedia and hope to continue being included on this website. A special thank you to WikiSports1982 for creating the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYAsportstalk (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — SYAsportstalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Struck content from confirmed socks above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiSports1982/Archive.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without. Discussion is closed without prejudice to a redirect to the article on the show. joe decker ^talk 17:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bulmer-Cooke

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

Non notable. The awards are minor without any evidence that they are regarded as important or significant, even within the profession . The references are entirely press releases or the equivalent.

By precedence here, appearing on the Apprentice is not notability. If one were to accept the premise of the show, it's proof of just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose if there's nothing to suggest moving elsewhere and better improvement as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of other people who have appeared on the show, perhaps? (If there is one) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Comedy

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

A comedy night in a local club is not notable, and any publicty it gets is lust that-- just PR. Apparently it has bigger plans for the future. So do many acts--when it accomplishes them, they there perhaps can be an article. Not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Londonist.com mentions a Chortle Award for the venue (Best small club, London), but only one of the sources (Beyond The Joke - a blog by Bruce Dessau) has the club as the main subject of its coverage, apart from that it seems to descriptions provided by Ferns and not independently of the subject or brief mentions but put together may be just enough for an article if the subject is significant enough. An alternative to deletion would be to redirect to the Barry Ferns article. Peter James (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shruthi Reddy

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Gul

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this and this and there are simply no signs of better improvement. Can you believe this has existed since October 2005 with this being the start? Pinging Fylbecatulous, The Blade of the Northern Lights and Fram and also author Spasage. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article alone should be enough to show clear notability. One of the major figures in Lollywood for decades. Most sources are probably not in the Latin script, so finding them is harder (for most of us at least), but what is there shows that he is clearly notable. Fram (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no real opinion on notability. My BLP tag was changed to another within about three weeks by another editor. Please ping that editor. It is true all external links are to IMDb, and there are no inline citations. So the maintenance tag is correct. Please someone add some sources, Latin based language or not. Actually, I see articles such as this everyday and just cringe at the state of our BLPs and article content in general. We are not winning the battle on quality here...thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 11:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is necessary is for people who can find and read the available sources to work on this, but from the career specified, notability is very likely. IMdB doesn't prove notability ,but it does provide verification of the films. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable biography. Just need few references. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Catanzano

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

This would seem notable and acceptable but I'm not entirely sure and the best I found was this and this. I'm not sure if Righteousskills can comment but I'll notify him anyway. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does look significantly better than it did back in 2012. My main concern was the lack of citations, which are now present. Righteousskills (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I find poetry to be very difficult because it doesn't get reviewed much so it's hard to have RS. In this case, there is one award (PEN), but I don't think that's enough. The other award was given by her publisher, so that isn't independent. That's all we have to go on, and I didn't find anything else of note. LaMona (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LaMona is correct, contemporary poets are difficult because poetry has so largely faded to a minor or even fringe art form in the Anglosphere. However, writing it has earned this poet university teaching jobs. She has published with well-regarded houses. There are 3 prizes on the page (including the one by the publisher in which publication probably was the competitive prize awarded). And she does get some press, io9 here: [6], Boston Review here: [7], WFDD here: [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does seem well sourced for a poet of today. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdülaziz Bayındır

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

As an Istanbul scholar, he would seem notable but I'm not entirely sure of that and the best I found was this, this, this, this (this one seems to be simply mirrors) and this so I hope this can get familiar attention. Notifying the only users albeit not currently active Kavas and RookTaker. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when I last looked into this individual I struggled to find much that indicated notability. RookTaker (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no way of evaluating his notability on way or another. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mufti of Istanbul is the leading Islamic scholar in that city. We have multiple sources that show he held that title. We may well need help from people fluent in Turkish to find better sources, but it is clear that Bayindir is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that you are mistaken regarding the definition of a Mufti. More than one Mufti can exist in a location (as opposed to a Grand Mufti) . Examples in the United Kingdom include Mufti Muhammad Ibn Adam al-Kawthari, Mufti Zubair Butt, Mufti Mohammed Sajaad, Mufti Barkatullah etc... Whilst these individuals are all Mufti's this doesn't necessarily imply that they are notable (in fact none of them seem to exist on Wikipedia). All it proves is that they have the qualifications to issue Islamic legal opinions. The links in the Bayandir article state that "Professor Abdul Aziz Bayandir(ph) is a former mufti of Istanbul". This sounds to me as though he is one of many former Muftis. I don't believe that this in itself proves notability (whereas the current Grand Mufti of Istanbul is Rahmi Yaran who probably should be on Wikipedia). RookTaker (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reaction to the comment above by RookTaker: Turkey itself no longer uses the title of Grand Mufti; Rahmi Yaran is simply the Mufti of Istanbul (İstanbul Müftüsü). Apparently, this is of insufficient importance to earn him an article in the Turkish Wikipedia. His predecessor, Mustafa Çağrıcı, also has no article in Turkish. (In the English Wikipedia Çağrıcı is said to be "currently mufti of Istanbul", although his appointment ended on 28 October 2011, see Milliyet article "Reformcu İstanbul Müftüsü alındı".) As far as I can see, Abdülaziz Bayındır was assistant at the Istanbul Mufti office for one year, a position that by itself would most definitely not confer notability and justify an article. His article on the Turkish Wikipedia also provides no other evidence of notability in the sense we require here. --Lambiam 00:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. clearly not sufficient from the references, and I think the interpretation of Mufti above makes sense. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors, nothing in the search engines shows they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Aslam

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

Seemingly non-notable actor with no further signs of improvement and the best results here, here and here and this simply hasn't improved since starting in September 2008. Notifying author Last Contrarian. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has acted in some movies and television shows. However, there's nothing significant about his roles and I am unable to find any notable facts about the subject. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Yash! 07:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Narain

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

Easily an A7 with its current state but the best my searches found was this, this, this, this and this suggesting there's not much for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagür

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this and this which is hardly much to imagine better improvement. Pinging the only still active user Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing much online on web pages or news. Perhaps there is a court case. But there seems to be no independent writings. so fails GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Espinoza

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best search links I found were this, this and this. This has not changed much since starting in April 2013 so comments about this would be helpful. Pinging DGG (I don't suppose you could comment at some of the AfDs I've listed at your talk page?) and Rich Farmbrough and I would've also included User:Blanchardb but they are not noticeably active. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. very minor notability at best, and considerable promotionalism . One book by Wiley *for which he was one of 3 authors) , an established publisher--other claimed books are totally insignificant. The sort of media experiences he made are wholly trivial. The section on quotes is pure promotionalism way out of proportion with the subject's importance. SwisterTwister, I'm still trying to clear up the backlog from Washington. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson are an established general publisher, one of the largest. FranklinCovey are a niche management/leadership publisher, whose flagship product is "7 Habits". Nonetheless we need significant RS about him, preferably, or at a pinch his books. (If his books do not meet GNG individually, but do collectively that would satisfy me.) This might lead to some of his other activities, though it probably does not count as independent itself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Regardless of publisher, the key thing is that none of the books has over 50 library holdings. in Worldcat,and in the field of popular self-help business books, that is about as insignificant as you can get. And the only one with more than 20 holdings is the one by Wiley. That's not a formal criterion, but when its as clear as this it's a very useful guide. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so far failure to meet GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fox Band

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.news-journal.com/news/2014/may/14/alan-fox-band-plans-first-show-in-longview-in-two-/ http://www.news-journal.com/news/2010/oct/07/rebirth-of-a-rock-band/ http://www.news-journal.com/news/2010/may/06/alan-fox-band-lives-on-after-gig-closes/ http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/jun/05/headliner-t-bone-walker-festival-a-fitting-tribute/ http://eguidemagazine.com/the-alan-fox-band/ http://www.jambase.com/artists/77389/Alan-Fox-Band http://www.palestineherald.com/alan-fox-band/image_8231ab6e-c5ec-555f-9124-1bf5b0b2744a.html http://www.statefairoflouisiana.com/events/2014/alan-fox-band--oct-23 https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/alan-fox-band/id287124694 http://www.guidelive.com/things-to-do/228027/alan-fox-band-mambos-tapas-cantina-fort-worth http://www.amazon.com/Never-Learn-Alan-Fox-Band/dp/B00GHJ0VH0 http://www.easttexasreview.com/tag/the-alan-fox-band/ http://www.prekindle.com/promo/id/22815447477471341 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Riverboat-Man-Alan-Fox-Band/dp/B00MMT1N6M http://www.frequency.com/video/waxahachie-whirlwind-alan-fox-band/241922458?cid=5-1805 http://www.outhousetickets.com/Artist/Alan_Fox_Band/ http://article.wn.com/view/2013/11/28/Alan_Fox_Band_breaks_out/ http://garlandisd.tix.com/Event.aspx?EventCode=627600 http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Alan_Fox_Band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockon520 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm from here and can't say I'm familiar with them and I'm not seeing much better to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the morass added above, looking through them they don't rise the article to meeting the notability criteria. Neither did searches on the engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wagtail (software)

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Dialectric, no primary sources, no indication of why this software is notable. LordPsychon (Com lines open) 21:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better and it's too soon at best. Pinging interested users Czar and Yann. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to add. Yann (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Tzu-yung

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

Candidate for a new Taiwanese party in the upcoming January 2016 elections. Standard media coverage of her candidacy announcements do not establish notability. This article is part of a newly expanded series of articles about the relatively small New Power Party. GermanJoe (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Perhaps userfy, and if they win the election, we can re-look at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As politicians/political-related page, we can keep her article if she wins the upcoming legislative election, thus she becomes the member of Legislative Yuan, or if she becomes the chairman of her party. And of course we can keep if she becomes any ministers/deputy ministers/chairperson/director-general of any ROC gov related agencies. But as a normal party member without any significant contribution to Taiwan, it is not strong enough to keep her as a Wikipedia article. Chongkian (talk) 16:13, 30 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. KTC (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DirectEmployers Association

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

Promotional article about a new company which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Speedy A7 and G11 was contested by USER:Ritchie333 on basis of WP:INHERITED from Bill Warren. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Access Network

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

At first sight this appears sufficiently referenced to verify notability. Dig deeper and you see that the references are not robust, many without significant coverage, some not actually about the org, and others not RS. Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nowat best until a better article can be made. Pinging tagger Dennis Brown. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did patrol and tag this one, saw that the refs really didn't pass SIGCOV, and at least then some didn't pass anything. Looking now, it looks like a paid editing article with no genuine refs, just links to mentions. They've had plenty of time to fix, I can assume this is as good as it will ever get, so delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andria D'Souza

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

Though I think the subject may be on the cusp of notability, I think this article is premature. No clear indication that the subject fully meets WP:NACTOR yet, with significant roles in multiple notable films. There may have been a better argument for this had she played the main lead in Faisal Saif's For Adults Only, but that project, (which may in fact have been a publicity stunt for Saif anyway) was shelved.[9] (and the article has since been prodded, so check it out while supplies last). There may be an argument for keeping based on this ref which indicates she has a lead role in another movie. She also apparently has a lead role in Kamasutra 3D, but that hasn't been released yet.

There's no indication the subject meets WP:GNG either. Most of the refs I've found are passing mentions.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

I have seen a few interviews, but those seem more like typical publicity pieces, and interviews are typically considered primary sources, so I don't think they qualify as "independent" coverage.[17][18]

I'd recommend a merge if I could think of an intuitive place to merge this content. Alternatively, we could userfy the content until notable films are released. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable. The subject (or somebody claiming to be her) has done her best to puff it up, but the notability simply isn't there yet, and may never be. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject passess WP:NACTOR, multiple mainstream movies as lead actress.--Human3015^TALK 22:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Human3015. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't meets WP:NACTOR. The Wikipedia page of Casanova doesn't mention her in the Cast section. She had a minor role in the production. She made a guest appearance in Nirel, another minor role in Looti. Kamasutra 3D hasn't released yet and the page For Adults Only would most likely be merged to the director's article. Her IMDb page mentions 1 TV appearance. I total, this doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines for actors. No encyclopaedic value at the present moment.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - this one passes WP:NACTOR, per lead actress in films.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has played significant role in just 1 film, rest are passing mentions and the film For Adults Only has been shelved.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR: Does not have significant roles in notable projects. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet sst ✈ 11:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 11:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep - marginally notable. Great photo though. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slap (text editor)

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

Non notable software. Article appears to have been created by the creator. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Linux Magazine's article about Slap. Fairly popular software, thousands of downloads a month. --Dbkaplun (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single article on a site that will write about pretty much anything linux related doesn't really establish any notability. -- Kethrus |talk to me 13:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - just because a primary source mentions something does not make it automatically notable (that'd be like listing your favorite professor from college whom everybody loves but no one outside of the college knows at all...the college may be notable but the professor, not so much). --LordPsychon (Com lines open) Neither black nor white but gray shall rule the day 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computer-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging Czar who is interested with this. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to indicate it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moulana Abid Khan

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

I don't see a lot of coverage apart from videos of his preaching, social media and reports of his death, but there may be a lot more in non-English sources. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability available, and I wouldl have considered speedy not afd. The mere possibility of more sources existing is not really something we can accept as a reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Tit' Nassels

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as the French Wiki is basically the same and the best my searches found was this, this and this and this has basically stayed the same since January 2007. Pinging Vrac (espero que todo esta bien contigo ) SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found some concert announcements but not much depth to the coverage. Vrac (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging interested subject users Michig and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search shows nothing. The French version of the article offers only one source that could be considered reliable. Not enough for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found some French coverage ([19], [20], [21], [22]) but not enough top convince me that the subject is notable enough. As the article doesn't really give an indication of why the group are notable I would go for delete unless something more convincing is turned up. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the opinion by Lonjing because they aren't making an Argument. Sandstein 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Kubzar

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

Doesn't meet our criteria for notability. He won a minor competition, some websites have covered that. No reliable source coverage and nothing to show that the subject would meet SNGs either —SpacemanSpiff 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spiff, SwisterTwister I declined the speedy deletion of Edwin Kubzar, a page which was tagged for speedy deletion. By using wikipedia, I agree to the Terms of Use and Policy. It was not a minor competition. Moreover, reliable sources are not available online. But hope this helps http://www.easternmirrornagaland.com/in-conversation-with-edwin-kubzar/ Lonjing (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep - needs better sources. Is notable in India. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Thank you DangerDogWest. Lonjing (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one source provided above is an interview, therefore a primary source and invalid for determining notability. News gave a couple of brief mentions; Newspapers, Books, Scholar and Highbeam returned zero hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugichan

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

Confusing Article, 2 Infoboxes, Very Poor English, Needs expert to rewrite the article to understand. Ninney (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article already exists on the Japanese wikipedia as ja:スギちゃん. Article as is is not currently easily understandable. -- Kethrus |talk to me 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Looking over other articles by the creator seem to have this problem as well. Not sure if this should be deleted or not though. Though it does seem confusing-says he is a comedian then goes off to him being a wrestler. Wgolf (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject itself is clearly notable in my opinion. I could easily gather quite a number of independent RS since, for a while there, he was one of the most popular comedians on TV in Japan. But the article is mostly a machine translation of the JA wiki article and, because Sugichan is famous enough that his JA article is quite long, very difficult to clean up. I would be inclined less towards deletion than turning it into a stub and starting from there. Michitaro (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - completely ignoring the contents of the article, he is actually a very notable comedian, as said by Michitaro. As far as wrestling goes, a quick look at the Japanese biography says he enjoys watching pro wrestling, and early in his comedy career he wore a wrestler's mask as one of his characters. I will have a crack at cleaning it up and report back here when I'm done. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reduced it down to a basic biography that describes why he is notable. I have not sourced the list of commercials yet, but the fact he won "word of the year" and that big companies like Nintento are paying him to advertise their products is a sure sign of his notability. I'm inviting Ninney, Kethrus, Wgolf and Michitaro to take a second look. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate point, I think the article should be moved to Sugi-chan, as "chan" is a suffix that is a cute/friendly version of the more familiar suffix "san". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must note I didn't doubt the notability of the subject. I'll take a look at the article when I get the chance. -- Kethrus |talk to me 10:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is indeed improved, readable, proper layout with clear strucutre. Okay! regarding moving the article to Sugi-chan. Just one doubt, the surname in the lede is 'Sugimura' & in the infobox is 'Sugiyama'. Also, would appreciate if Award section is added. @AtHomeIn神戸: Thanks for all the efforts in saving the article. Thanks all for participation. - Ninney (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninney, thank you for the compliment. Also, thank you for pointing out the mistake. Sugiyama is the correct name. I work with someone named Sugimura who is also nicknamed Sugichan... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes enough sourcing and third-party coverage to establish basic notability. No valid argument for deletion was actually presented by the original nominator. --DAJF (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, [check this link] when the article was marked for deletion. - Ninney (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I said above, there was no question that the subject passed WP:GNG, the only issue was whether the initial state of the article was so bad that it needed some WP:TNT. I leaned against that, and Athomeinkobe eventually showed that it could be salvaged. Michitaro (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irvine Progressive

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of available reliable secondary sources. Also appears to be a defunct publication. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any historic and salvageable data to the university's article and Redirect. There is nothing to show that this was ever notable. Had it been then I would be opining that we keep it, because notability does not wane. I am not concerned that it is defunct, nor should we be. Many things are defunct and have articles here. It is very unusual that a student newspaper is notable, and this seems to be no exception. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine per above rationale. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine per above rationale.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:41, 30 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) 02:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Verdict

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

This website is not the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) It's only mentioned in passing when its reviews are quoted in (usually promotional) press. There are no refs in the article that show significant coverage—most are primary sources and the previous AfD did not reveal anything different. czar 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Analyzed in a four-page section of an academic book (I've added to further reading). This news article also covers the site at length, but I can't access the full text (already cited). These sources alone might indicate bare notability, but an article of appropriate length could be written from these coupled with numerous summaries of the site in print (1, 2, 3, 4). 23W 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 17:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a suitable and improvable stub/start class article per analysis and sources brought forward by User:23W showing the nom's rationale is flawed, and the facts shared in the last such deletion attempt of five years ago: 1) DVD Verdict is one of the top DVD review websites much like DVD Talk. Major movie studios work with DVD Verdict to get press coverage and reviews of their new releases. DVD Verdict is also counted as a reliable source for countless Wikipedia film related articles. 2) SCTV includes their reviews of them on their website,[23], they are listed besides others such as Roger Ebert, Salon.com, etc. as reviewers,[24] and Rotten Tomatoes considers them a suitable critic resource.[25] 3) 9 sources should be sufficient to keep it; the minimum number required is 2. And aside from a wish to have it gone, no proper deletion argument has been made. User:23W found the coverage the nom did not, and this is suitable for coverage herein under WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:RSOPINION. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by 23W and per points by Schmidt (especially point 1). Cavarrone 16:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review, please? (1) We have no indication of what the "further reading" Prince book contains (though the title, How to Make Money on MySpace, should ring bells of promotionalism, and there is nothing in the author byline that would indicate that this book is in any way academic. (2) I suppose the CBS Marketwatch snippet stands, though it isn't much. I would agree to this point that DVD Verdict would be mentioning somewhere, but there isn't nearly enough stuff to write an article of any length (nevertheless to pass the general notability guideline). (3) The remaining bare links (#1–4 above) are the epitome of passing mentions: they mention the site's name but say no more about it. As for the rest, I don't see where inclusion in Rotten Tomatoes (or any mainstream aggregator for that matter) is a substitution for significant coverage in reliable sources. There are not nine sources of significant coverage. We're resting on two, really—which are admittedly not much—and a number of passing mentions. czar 17:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book chapter is presented as a "case study" on the site, and McGraw-Hill is known for publishing mostly instructive texts. Maybe "academic" isn't the right word – that title sounds great for a comedy book nowadays – but what you put stock in the book seems subjective, and it's at least independent from Verdict. The other print sources are stubby, but I'm curious if an impact section could be made from those and the longer sources. 23W 21:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:SIGCOV two is enough... and as WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline, under WP:N multiple less-than substantive sources are fine as long as they offer more-than-trivial information. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except we have no indication the two sources have more-than-trivial info? The MySpace book might provide a basic description of the site (basing this off of Google snippets unless someone actually has the book) but the rest of its two-page chapter appears to be based on MySpace marketing (you know, the book's topic). And the Marketwatch snippet consists of what the DVD Verdict guy thinks viewers prefer—has nothing to do with the website itself. I won't get into whether two sources is patently "enough", but I certainly don't see how these two sources are enough to write any authoritative encyclopedia article on the topic. Maybe worth mentioning in a list of review sites somewhere, though. czar 13:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an admittedly imperfect encyclopedia anyone can edit which, by its having no editing "staff" (simply many volunteers lacking any verifiable qualifications) is admittedly unreliable and thus not "authoritative". Any actual "authority" is found in the reliable sources elsewhere that choose to write about the topics we simply echo about herein. And so here we can inform our readers with information (not just a name on a list) of staffed review websites widely accepted elsewhere as expert by those actual authorities. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I don't see what makes DVD Verdict an authoritative source if we're struggling to find any reliable source to verify basic information about its operation. I see blogs with more coverage than this review site. I suppose I have nothing else to add unless someone has more than the two sources already discussed. czar 05:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy probably did the research themselves to gauge DVD Verdict as an "authoritative source" even if you or I personally did not. Of course perhaps those many RS should all be demoted to non-RS.

And rather than concentrating on the two offered above as examples of non-mandated SIGCOV, we might look ourselves at Google News [26][27], Google Books [28], Google Scholar [29] (see, WP:GHITS last paragraph rather than me picking a few dozen out of the many hundreds) and we can wonder why so many many reliable sources rely on or speak of what you determined as a such a non-notable site, ask ourselves how things have changed in the 5 years since the last AFD, and ask "why should Wikipedia not have some coverage?" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone seriously contends that using a pullquote from a review to advertise a game (usually at the DVD author's discretion) is some kind of endorsement of the source's quality. And no, it should not be a surprise that "academic" reviews pull the only review source they could find online and use it for opinions—I don't think it's fair to conclude that they have a source-vetting process. (Mind you, they also cite Wikipedia. I'm positive their editors won't be fired over such inclusions.) But I also think this is off-topic from whether the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable & independent sources. The Google links above are the epitome of passing mentions. Once again, there's nothing with which to actually write an article. Yes, things have changed since the last AfD five years ago, namely the bar of inclusion/notability. czar 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it seems that despite our mutual bluster, a repeat of a consensus toward notability seems destined. Shall we expect you to nominate this again in another five years? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoria Kamenskaya

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

This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Wolbo (talk) 12:20, 30 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. joe decker ^talk 17:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Schäfer

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

This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable.

Nothing has changed since the previous deletion discussion. Jared Preston (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Someone simply removed the speedy delete... but the same things stand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article shows no notability.--Wolbo (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports kit manufacturing companies

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

~~Unnecessary and incomplete list, which is unsourced JMHamo (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, defining characteristic, plausible search term. Siuenti (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary non-notable list. The individual companies are notable, but this list is cruft, specifically points 1, 3, 5, 8, and 12. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been swayed by Fenix down's eloquence and strike my !vote. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is a sports kit? (term redlinked at the time of this post) Is it a synonym of sporting goods? postdlf (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. I guess it could refer to sportswear or sports equipment or both. Spiderone 15:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems no more or less notable than the majority of the lists here, which is to say pretty notable. The nomination rationale istself is so flawed as to basically be Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions 101.

The claim that it is not necessary is basically WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.
The claim that it is incomplete is basically WP:NEGLECT
The claim to no sources is basically WP:MUST (whilst also being WP:BLUE in this instance as it is self-evident that the constituents of the list are sports kit manufacturers to the vast majority of people).

The claims of listcruft are also flawed:

Point 1: Given the existence of this it seems perfectly reasonable to have a list of companies by this defining characteristic.
Point 3: None of the four points at WP:IINFO are relevant to this list which by its title is inherently not indiscriminate.
Point 5: No evidence is provided that the list cannot be expanded. In fact this is the opposite of what the initial deletion rationale claims when it says it is incomplete.
Point 8 is irrelevant per WP:NOTPAPER and also because WP is not just an encyclopedia per WP:NGEO so the fact you wouldn't find the same content in the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a relevant deletion rationale.
Point 12 is demonstrably false. the current constituents are all large global companies of significant importance to their sector. There are also others of similar size that could be added without coming close to making this point true.

That said though, the title is a bit poor. It should be moved to List of sporting goods manufacturers. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Fenix down is correct about what "sports kit" means, keep per his comments, per WP:CLN as a complement to Category:Sporting goods manufacturers, and rename to match the category and the parent article sporting goods (to which sports kit should redirect). I also agree with his critique of the generic and invalid nomination and subsequent deletion !vote. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to OMICS Publishing Group. And protect, allowing users to merge what is relevant from the history. I'm discounting the bevy of apparent sockpuppets, single-purpose accounts and/or COI accounts. Sandstein 07:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Group Inc

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

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

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

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

There is already an article on their publishing activities. The question, then, is whether the conference side is notable. The references given involve mere incidental mentions of this company (or are simply press releases); there is no basis for notability here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish we could keep it, so that we could warn our readers for the crappy conferences that this group produces, but I have to agree with Nomoskedasticity that there are not sufficient sources for that. Perhaps a few sentences to this effect could be added to OMICS Publishing Group. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article existed before (under the name OMICS Group) and was replaced with a redirect, in part due to lack of notability despite a collection of superficially decent sources. As the nomination notes, the new version of the article does not seem to be improved in this regard. So I vote to replace with a redirect to the publishing arm. I also agree with RandyKitty that I think there probably is just enough sourceable content here to support a section in the publishing arm's page, perhaps with a title "activities of parent company" or something. --JBL (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the publication group. Having two articles on the same subject is unnecessary, and serves only to obscure their misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created as per talk page, and conferences sources [30], [31], [32] and their parent company sources [33] are reliable, recent and well established articles from reputed news magazine. Later 10 more prominent sources were added. Dentking07 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet: [34]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself: "Of the four sources you mentioned in this post: the first is simply an announcement and involves no coverage whatsoever. The second mentions the existence of a conference but says nothing about it beyond its existence and that it was "intended for university professors." The third is totally promotional, and also provides almost no coverage of the larger company; substantively, it says almost nothing aside from quotes by the founder of OMICS. The fourth is just a business listing with no substantive coverage or content." --JBL(talk) 17:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check 10 more sources were added

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

This deletion proposal initiated before adding these references.Dentking07 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first 4. At least one is duplicated from your previous list (and has 0 information), another goes to an article with no mention of OMICS whatsoever (presumably a copy-paste error on your part), and the other two are an announcement with 0 information and an announcement with some information about a particular conference, but no information about OMICS Group. At that point I decided you were wasting my time. --JBL (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Can you please check propoely by doing CtrlF OMICS you will get relevant info from all references sources. For conferences there is an announcement before the conference with in association with societies, Government agencies, organization and conclusion points publication from prominent people in reputed news magazines. What else is required. Dentking07 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proposed Kenes Group, another spammy conference promoter whose article was created by Dentking07, for deletion. If Dentking07 behaves the same on that one as here, it may also need to go to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Spammy company do not produce 3,000 conferences in more than 100 cities around the globe, with over 115,000 participants per year. Let me add critiques in next edits. This is one of the largest scientific and academic conferences organization, so i propose ~~Strongly Keep~~ Dentking07 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As predicted... —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I see no reason to have two articles on the same company. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no convincingly better signs of better improvement and at best this should be restarted later when said improvement happens better. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we should keep it, as it will be an important source of information for the academic and scientific community. Especially the conferences, because there are very few of them in this area. Chandrashekar399 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Chandrashekar399 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I find this article quite legit as I hail from Hyderabad and I've seen that they've been doing some good work. Have read some of their journals as well. Their office is below the Hyderabad Facebook office at Raheja Mindspace. Karthiksrinivas (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Karthiksrinivas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- In case anyone else is wondering where these latest two new editors came from: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. S. Prakash and the history of that article. It doesn't look like they have anything to do with Dentking07. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, I don't see any of these editors at that AfD or in the article history? --Randykitty (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Chandrashekar399 created A. S. Prakash and Karthiksrinivas is a contributor to both it and its AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, got confused... But I don't see what that has to do with this AfD? --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two new editors coming into an AfD like this makes it look like the AfD is being targeted by sockpuppets who wish to create the appearance of many people wanting to keep it. But my initial comment here was to note that in this case, because of the connection to the other AfD, a different explanation is more likely. The good-faith explanation is that they are really two different new editors who found the Wikipedia deletion discussions through the other AfD and wanted to start contributing more broadly. The bad-faith explanation is that they really are sockpuppets and are trying to disguise their connection to the other article by finding other discussions to contribute to. In either case the connection to this specific AfD seems likely to be merely incidental. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their publishing article is with old sources and neutrality was missed, so this article was created as per talk at that page [45][46] Along with this I created Kenes Group, CHI Conferences, IEEE Conferences etc. These conferences and this article is useful to Academic/scientific community. This essential information is required especially to KPMG, PWC to analyze the perspectives of scientific/academic conferences. All the sources are informative and acceptable, so i propose this article ~~Strongly Keep~~Dentking07 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dentking07: you should only leave one "keep" or "delete" comment per AfD. You already have a keep, so I have struck out this new one. Also, please place comments in chronological order (new comments at the bottom) unless you are replying to someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OMICS Educational Society added, keep the article as a group is into multiple business. Chennapanaidu darapaneni (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Companies like Microsoft are really many many businesses in one (the Windows business, the Windows Azure business, the Office business, and so on). If Microsoft doesn't have multiple articles for each individual business, why should OMICS? Banedon (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Chennapanaidu darapaneni has a severe conflict of interest here. According to this and this, they own companies in which OMICS has invested a significant amount of money. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red-links were pages created by Chennapanaidu darapaneni and speedy-deleted for "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person." --JBL (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect, and protect the redirect. As Randykitty says, we should have the information, but invluding the key information and making a direct to it in the main article would be fully sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree with Banedon, DGG and Randykitty, I am merging the sister concern article OMICS Publishing Group with the parent article OMICS Group Inc. I am not sure to imply disputes/controversies to parent article from sister concern. ^{[neutrality is disputed]}can be checked later, I am copying all disputes/controversies to parent. Dentking07 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As long as we have one article rather than two, it doesn't matter much to me whether the title of the article is for the whole group or its publishing branch. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we had last time however is that editors (likely afflicted with COI) loaded it up with useless crap that was nonetheless "reliably sourced". I think we're much better off with a focused article built on a solid core of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course; but this is true regardless of what the article title actually is. (Articles under both titles have been subject to attack by COI socks.) --JBL (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article title is OMICS Publishing, content would have to be focused on publishing; there wouldn't be scope for coverage of conferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense to me to have an article on the parent, with a subsection for the publishing arm. After all, if the publishing arm is notable enough to have its own article, then logically the parent company would be even more notable and therefore deserve its own article too. In that case, why not just have an article on the parent company with relevant subsections? Banedon (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. A notable product doesn't make the producer notable, nor does a notable producer makes its product notable. Need actual notability directly for whatever the article's subject is. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

collapse comments from blocked sockpuppet

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note Any article should be merged from sister concern to parent, publishing arm OMICS Publishing Group is a sister concern of OMICS Group Inc, parent company is conducting conferences, education society etc, As agreed by all we can proceed with OMICS Group Inc / OMICS Group and merge the publishing arm to the parent. Dentking07 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently it's not agreed by all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In my previous comment mentioned as agreed by all, as Nomoskedasticity wrote merging from sister concern to parent was agreed by some of the members and some opposed members again noted to merge. Dentking07 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, and protect the redirect The parent company doesn't meet WP:CORP but anything that is suitably sourced can be merged into OMICS Publishing Group which is notable. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is an active SPI involving several of the editors who have commented here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scholarscentral. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- per nom and Randykitty's assessment (as well as other editor's above). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the creator of this article is a likely sock of Scholarscentral, who has a long history of copyright violations and is the subject of a CCI. If any content is retained from this article it should be checked for copyright violations. January (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After Silence(2015)

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

No assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines and WP:NFILM. This article was just deleted as an expired PROD. This recreation still has no sources. The only After Silence film I could find any was a short film on rape and not this film. Jbh ^Talk 13:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have added a single database-like entry from a film festival and a Youtube trailer, but that's about all I can find. Fails NFILM and GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found the same results as Sam Sailor, and it is not enough to establish notability. The Afghan Film Festival itself does not appear very notable (if at all), so it is not surprising that films at a festival of minor note would not garner much coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had PRODded this earlier today having found no evidence of any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It had been deleted via expired PROD just a few days ago [47]. I wish there were an easy way to see if an article is a recreation, I would not have noticed it if the article was not still on my watch list from the last PROD. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 17:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. I didn't have any luck searching in the language of the latter half of the Youtube external link within the article either.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Flinn

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

Won election to county board of commissioners, but otherwise a failed politician. Non-notable business owner. Most all links here are self-published (including personal Facebook and LinkedIn pages), plus corporate promotional links. Mikeblas (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement here. Pinging Magnolia677 and Voceditenore. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as owner of 40 radio stations; the rest of the claims don't seem to be detailed enough to get a grasp on whether they're significant. A county board seat is not in itself a high enough office to attract Wikipedia-level notability for its occupant. --Closeapple (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comprehensively fails WP:Politician and owning lots of non-notable local radio stations is not enough to qualify for notability as a businessman in the absence of secondary sources about this aspect of his career or his company. If by some chance this horrifically spammy advertorial is kept, it will need drastic editing.Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPOL and searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Argentine history

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

This is an incomplete list that may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "timeline" approach in general. But timeline articles have been generally accepted, and a single AFD isn't the place to seek consensus to the contrary. In any case, no valid deletion rationale was raised here. Incomplete lists, or even lists which are impossible to complete, are not in and of themselves cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per Squeamish Ossifrage. "Incomplete article" is not valid rationale for deletion of article. --Human3015^TALK 14:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has not presented any valid reason for deletion. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per rationales above. Vrac (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Hughes_(photographer)

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

The article is an obvious WP:SPAM violation. The edit history makes it clear that the whole article is created almost exclusively by the subject, and it never establishes any real WP:NOTABILITY, its purpose is just to advertise its creator. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I considered nominating it for speedy as it's so obvious. Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not deleting A7 as it does make some claims of importance, and it would probably be better to go through a community process than a speedy deletion shortcut. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is pretty clearly WP:PROMOTION to me, and anyway fails to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Repertory of the Salzburg Festival 2015

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

Reason: Delete per WP:CFORK, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per discussion at Talk:Opera Repertory of the Salzburg Festival 2015#Proposal (which discussion has prompted this AfD nomination). A previous attempt to merge this article with Salzburg Festival ended when the article creator unilaterally removed the merge tag. The article as it now stands after some editing has two sections: a text which can be merged with Salzburg Festival (and of which the salient points have already been merged), and a very extensive table which as a consequence of its excessive and unreferenced detail and extensive use of red links is essentially cruft. Smerus (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft content-fork for one random year. Wikipedia is not a directory or catalog of an opera company's (or festival's) every production and singer. By the way, there's nothing further to merge and no reason to redirect -- just delete. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur SpiritedMichelle (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerus.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moulann Chang

(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 since CBC consisted several of the listed sources, I searched there with no avail and therefore there is no obvious improvement here. It's also worth noting this has existed since July 2006 and was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulann. Pinging Nlu, Monni95, Ohconfucius, Bearcat, Brianyoumans, Bustter, Trialsanderrors and Ifnord. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 2006 was such a different time in Wikipedia's evolution — my keep argument in the original discussion was one I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole today. That said, she arguably did pass the standards that Wikipedia had for the notability of musicians at the time — the standards themselves were a lot less well-defined, and our sourcing rules were a lot looser and more flexible about what constituted a valid source, than the rules that apply in 2015. But there's no evidence that she's done anything that would satisfy the current version of WP:NMUSIC, and her sourceability isn't readily improvable. So by contemporary standards, she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting to see how much more active older AfD discussion were. The citations are pretty unreliable, and my own searches turn up nothing better. mikeman67 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 7 of WP:NMUSIC, and WP:V. Monni (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just say she passes that criterion — you have to demonstrate and reliably source how she passes that criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. She is a Youtube artist, with a bandcamp page for her website. There are no solid reliable sources to support this article's inclusion as Encyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BAND. Stubbleboy 10:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed to the above.--Yulun5566 (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Albanian diaspora. Sandstein 06:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian migration

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

Seemed like a personal opinion. we can blow it out for now. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minimal content here, to say the least. The wording of the last sentence especially makes me suspect this is either an unfinished personal essay or else excerpted from some other source without attribution. In any case, whether or not the topic of repatriation of Albanian emigrants warrants an article, there's nothing here to save. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian diaspora, of which this is a content fork with no information not already in the latter. ‑ iridescent 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Andrew Davidson listed the following sources relevant to this subject in this edit: [48] [49] [50]. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Albanian diaspora. Nothing in the sources given above convinces me that this needs a separate article. No useful content to merge, either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Iridescent and Randykitty. Not enough for a standalone article, nor to warrant a merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Ghost (band)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. I can't find any evidence of notability. Sources provided are unreliable Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article's band's website is hosted by bandcamp.com, a popular host site for up-and-coming artist's to create their own page.

References from this article's Wikipedia page include:

www.thefader.com, Alexa rank 18,782 worldwide
www.stereogum.com, Alexa rank 8,686 worldwide
www.hypetrak.com, Alexa rank 29,016 worldwide
www.immersiveatlanta.com, Alexa rank 2,450,433 worldwide
clatl.com "Creative Loafing", Alexa rank 73,082

Per nom, this article fails notability and does not satisfy the guidelines set forth in WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBAND. Stubbleboy 10:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few references in the article are about the band but they don't seem to be reliable or substantial enough to establish notability. My own searches turned up nothing better. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - No obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Neville

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One hit (download) ... seems a bit too soon for Mr. Neville. pablo 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only "On top of the World" song that I have ever found to be notable would be by the artist's known as Imagine Dragons. A google search of On top of the World Jack Neville generates a Youtube song uploaded on October 16, 2012 in which the up-loader states "This is the first original song i have put on Youtube". It is subsequently followed by a total of 5 comments. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Stubbleboy 09:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My WP:BEFORE search did not reveal anything conclusive. I'm inclined to !vote deleted due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 11:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colorlabs

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

promotional article with no evidence of notability, fails WP:ORG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging interested subject users Crisco 1492, DMacks, Esquivalience and Czar. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see no coverage in The Jakarta Post, the Jakarta Globe, Kompas, or Tempo. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as A7, G11 (not notable; advert). Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NightDoWhat

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

promotional article with no evidence of notability, fails WP:ORG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11. --Drm310 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Technologies

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

promotional article with no evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no evidence of notability, weasel words ("firebrand economist"?!), self promotion etc.. Chandler321 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply no obvious signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oniontech

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unnotable provider of "solutions". . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Jamia Mosque, Karachi

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

A bit too soon to start an article when there are five years left in the construction, especially in a country like Pakistan where construction time can double or even triple due to corruption and other "problems" with red tape and land mafias etc. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter whether the mosque is under construction or already built. It received media coverage during its foundation ceremony which makes it notable enough for a WP article. Bharatiya29 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if construction time quadruples, this still passes WP:GNG as it has already received in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Albanian Superliga table

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD and PROD. The concerns I had about it in 2011/12 still remain though. There is no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this all-time table and unless some can be found it is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Jenks24 (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 05:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the WP:OR concerns expressed in the first AfD are still relevant. The RSSSF source only provides season by season, not an aggregated view. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS Spiderone 08:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, per OR/NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 09:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Shirt58 (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zapzhoop

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

Lack of notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any entries under google or anywhere else. Seems non-existent.45sixtyone (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, the article appears to be related to a website called zapzhoop.com, an online shopping service headquartered in Mumbai, India. Regardless, per WP:CORP, this individual organization has received no notice from independent sources, and is therefore considered not notable. Stubbleboy 09:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as A7 as this clearly is. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn as rationale does not apply ; article improved; notability clear DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia I. Seneviratne

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

Delete. WP:COPYVIO. As per this, violation suspected 99.3%. I had previously tagged this page for CSD which was removed by another user without removing the copyvio. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The AfD nomination was not on grounds of notability but for COPYVIO. I think Alex Bakharev explained the issue very well and hence it is best I withdraw the nomination (also as suggested by David Eppstein). Thanks everyone for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, pretty notable scientist. The list of publications might be taken by the original author of the article from some website, but this part is not copyright-able, as it has nothing but list of standard-formatted references to publications: information is not a subject to copyright and its representation is not novel. The small lede is certainly not copyvio (I have wrote it myself). Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have inserted references to her list of publications from her page in ETH (the suspected copyvio) and from Thomson Reuters. They are basically the same Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but get rid of the comprehensive list of publications, and instead provide information about her and her career. While I agree that the list of publications should not be considered a copyvio, I don't see how it is relevant for inclusion here: it comes across as overly promotional and it belongs in her CV, not here imho. There is little doubt that she satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, based on the information in the citation for the James B. Macelwane Medal from the American Geophysical Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gronk Oz (talk • contribs) 08:00, 29 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Keep - for the same reasons as the entry above. The Thomson reference plus the list of publications seems to be enough. More personal details needed.45sixtyone (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly move to Sonia Seneviratne. I've removed the COPYVIO content and cleaned up some of the article. The award and the number of citations indicate she is an influential scientist and is notable. However there is no need to keep the middle initial, per WP:MIDDLES, as she is not referred to with the I in the press. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. All the reasons for deletion in the nomination rationale are related to cleanup not notability, and have now been handled. The subject clearly passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. The move suggestion can be handled separately from the AfD. Suggest nominator withdraw the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for reasons stated above and second dropping middle initial --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Master of Science in Bioinformatics

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

Prodded and deleted, then restored after a prod challenge at WP:REFUND. There is no indication of importance and I can't find any source that discusses these programs as a group, so it does not satisfy the notability criteria for a stand-alone list. Even the article Master of Science in Bioinformatics is of questionable notability. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with RockMagnetic about notability but it is very difficult to find all universities with a particular Master's degree and such a list would be invaluable for an aspiring student, especially with the possibility of distance studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45sixtyone (talk • contribs) 07:49, 29 October 2015‎
Delete. With all due respect to 45sixtyone, we are not a directory or anything of the sort. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Master of Science in Bioinformatics#Universities. It certainly doesn't merit its own article. 45sixtyone, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good Afd argument. (Also smack the person who named the article.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jeske, it's not our job to keep a list like this updated. shoy (reactions) 18:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete as an attack page. Max Semenik (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Shaheen

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

As I noted in my speedy rationale, which was removed, this is pretty straightforwardly an attack page. Shaheen is not notable and the only source in the article is an unreliable hit piece. This should be fast-tracked to the dustbin as an obvious G10. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-well its not a outright attack page, but I'm not sure if the guy is notable or not-I would have to look more into it. Wgolf (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Shaheen is notable. He was the United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire. That makes him notable. Beyond this the fact that Shaheen was the owner of a pawn shop with his co-owner going to jail is notable. It is just that the person making this nomination is seeking to keep these truths from coming to light. This is the same person who violated canvassing rules in an attempt to stop the Manhattan Declaration from being described as the religious freedom related document that its creators framed it as and intended it to be. The fact that his speedy nomination was removed by someone other than the creator of the article should have caused him to pause in his attempt to suppress truth. What is extremely suspect is how quick this editor is to sanitize of true statements articles on Shaheen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you feel the BLP policy is an infringement on your religious freedom, but if so, your problem is not just with this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious and overt attack page, linking him to the criminal conviction of his brother in law, using an article as the only source which states "The Shaheens were never charged or connected to the crimes." Enough said. It is repulsive and repugnant to base a BLP violating attack page on thin soup like this. If this man is notable, then write a well-referenced biography that gives an NPOV overview of his whole life and career. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been significantly expanded with multiple additional sources and more information included in the article than existed at the time it was nominated for deletion or the last comment was made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The added sources only serve to further demonstrate that this individual is not notable. There must be a term for a reverse COATRACK, but I can't think of it right now - but what I'm saying is, all of this trivial material about his being the chair of a local primary committee and whatnot, you'd never have bothered to find it if you weren't desperately trying to fabricate a scandal about J. Shaheen. It's transparent and ridiculous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, you have ignored warnings about your BLP violations, and doubled down by expanding your hit piece, continuing your attack on a living person using cherry-picked sources selected to paint this living person in the worst possible light. Truly disgusting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a totally unfair characterization of the sources I have used. The sources are not cherry picked. They are the top sources I have come up with in a google search for Bill Shaheen. There is nothing cherry picked about the sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you well know, a simple Google search in the age of rumormongering, tabloid journalism, and click bait garbage, will highlight the sensationalistic. Have you ever heard of the basic concept of editorial judgment? That means looking for sources that provide in-depth biographical detail, context, and historical perspective. What you have created is an ugly mashup of tabloid rumor mongering. You would rightly be outraged if these tactics were used to besmirch someone you respected. For shame! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yet if I make an article mainly focused around in-depth sources that give adequate and balanced biographies of people it gets nominated for deletion because the sources are not "independent" by a set of criteria that seem to ever expand what is not independent. The fact of the matter is that Bill Shaheen passes the general notability requirement. He has recieved coverage in many sources. Deletion is not the place to discuss the quality of an article, only the notability of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        When you write a stunningly poorly referenced partisan hit piece masquerading as a biographical encyclopedia article, then the attack MUST be deleted under WP:G10. If the person is notable, then a neutral biography can be written at another time by editors without axes to grind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attack page. He may be notable, but we'd need to start from scratch. Calidum T|C 05:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attack page. With the attack items now gone there is nothing notable left.45sixtyone (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:26, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperi

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

Nonnotable e-business Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not qualify under WP:N and reads like an advertisement.45sixtyone (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best and there's no better obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (Deuce album)

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

Speculation on an unreleased music album. Oscarthecat (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently it's been released (according to the Deuce (singer) article - with the citation needed template), but this is a very poor article and does appear to be speculation. The source originally linked appeared to be a fake 'official' channel containing links to adfly which then linked to iTunes, which doesn't seem like it would be the actual 'official' YouTube of a singer. -- Kethrus |talk to me 13:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Redirect I have sources but nobility is my main concern. I have sources and links of downloads to deuces official VK profile were he has been releasing free singles until he is legally cleared for album release. So I vote redirect until more information becomes available. 75Indians75 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that 75Indians75 has are from a social media site, and are not official. Deuce's website is "http://deucela.com/" while those releases were from "Deuce.com" and are not associated with the artist. It's not the subject's profile that has "released" the album, it's someone who is masquerading as the singer. The fact that Deuce is American and the "official" page on the site lists everything in Russian is another problem. Why doesn't Deuce have links to it on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/DeuceLA/) or mention it on his official Twitter account (https://twitter.com/deuce9lives)? There's no entry for it in the iTunes store or Amazon. What we appear to have is a pirated copy being circulated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. When it is officially released and there are multiple secondary reliable sources discussing it, then an article can be created. Or if there is significant discussion in multiple RSs about the album despite it not being released. I wouldn't object to a redir to the artist to hold the history, but I see no real need for it, unless it would help avoid a premature recreation. DES ^(talk) 22:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced fluff with no context. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No reason to drag this further, after two relists and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 09:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indiareloaded

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

Non-notable book. Article contains no references to support a notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 15:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a ton of copyvio in the article, which I've removed. There are two usable sources, but they're interviews with the author rather than reviews for the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took some digging, partially through WP:INDIA's newspaper search, but I managed to find two reviews for the book. There are two other articles in there that talk about the book in general and one labels itself as a review, although it's set up like an interview, but I think that all of these together help establish enough notability for this to pass NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To gain input on Tokyogirl79's improvements Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR KTC (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Tomellini

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Zelle

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

Not seeing significant independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF or other notability guidelines. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article confers notability and my own searches turn up nothing substantial. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. clearly non-notable. Extended discussion not really necessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Windsor

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage and no supporting evidence to show notability in his field.Mdtemp (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no independent sources at all. My own search didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the writer of the article. I've added some internal links. Windsor (with Arne Koets) is one of a handful of people in the world that are experts in HEMA, and are professional Sword masters (that is they, teach and travel internationally, as a full time profession). He has written 6 books on the subject, and is one of the top experts in Fiore (if not the top expert) in Italian style Longsword. He's taught internationally. Bascially, he is one of the most well known, if not the most well known expert....anyone doing Italian Longsword would have heard of him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being professional at anything isn't an indicator of notability. Is there any chance you can link online to any of the references you added? Just looking at the titles doesn't convince me since I see articles on stage combat and video games which doesn't seem to "address the topic directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. As I said in my comment my search didn't find online evidence (yes I know online is not a requirement), but it would help to show he's notable. After all, the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two links, as you requested. However the other articles that refer to him as an expert are not free journals, they are on the Factiva news services if you have access to that?. I agree, being professional at something doesn't mean you are an expert, but when you tie it in with the fact people all over the world are asking him to run seminars, he has been doing it for 20 years, he is referred to as an expert in articles, Game Journals are asking his advice on Sword fighting.... and he has written 7 books on the topic, the overall picture would indicate he seems to know his stuff Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I can't access Factiva. The problem is that I just see passing mentions. I have seen many articles on martial artists who are considered "experts" and travel extensively giving seminars deleted because of a lack of significant coverage. I'm not saying he's not an expert, just that I haven't yet seen the coverage necessary to support the claim he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional demand does not indicate notability. Only whether or not publications have thought this worth writing about. The same goes for his books. I don't think GNG has been established here if we're excluding his mixed martial arts career. Mkdw ^talk 19:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only significant source appears to be a podcast on the "Chivalry Today" website and I don't know if that's reliable or independent. It may be, but that's not enough to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pschent Music

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

Unsourced, half translated piece of advertising. Seems to fail WP:GNG too. The Banner talk 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing any obvious signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article containing text which closely paraphrases the firm's own site. At best I am finding a couple of passing mentions in the music industry press. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:04, 31 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. KTC (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heera Group UK

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

My searches simply found nothing better than this aside from the obvious music websites so there's simply nothing to suggest keeping this unless considerable archived sources are found. Pinging users Hekerui and Muhandes. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If memory serves right, it was decided that UK Asian Music Awards is a notable reward. By extension, a band winning a lifetime achievement award from this is notable. However, this is not needed. A less tighter search gives more than 20 sources mentioning this group and this gives even more (I stopped counting at 30). In fact you will be hard pressed to find a serious resource about Bhangra's history not mentioning this group. What this article needs is more love, not deletion. --Muhandes (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Sweeney

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

I'm simply not seeing any signs of better notability and improvement especially third-party attention as the best I found was this, this and this and as interesting and somewhat sourced as this seems, I'm simply not seeing anything better and this hasn't changed much since November 2008. Notifying author Auric. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding some coverage about her business (Today, Daily Herald), but it's predominantly from the same point in time. The most recent thing I've found so far is this source, but it's primary since it's written by Sweeney herself. That the article has some mildly promotional tones doesn't help much either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N is permanent. If she was notable at one time, she continues to be notable unless it is a WP:ONEEVENT situation. I sse a lot of deadlinks in her article, so someone needs to run down archives, but she has a few WP:RS in support of her claims.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the dead links. While the article could stand some further cleanup and reformatting, I feel it should remain.Auric talk 23:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic pseudo bio; she's received sporadic attention for her claim to be able to teach children potty training in one day. I don't see the in-depth coverage of her necessary to meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is more about her business than about her personal life but that's not problematic, it's merely what she's notable for. I think the coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no substantial accomplishment. Runs a course out of her kitchen to toilet train children. This is below the level of an encyclopedia. the newspaper articles is the sort of coverage that shows the GNG to be nonsense when taken literally. The policy, fortunately, is NOT TABLOID, which rules out coverage for stuff like this. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is encyclopedic fodder. Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Searches showed that there is not enough in-depth coverage of the person this article is about to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Runs her own business but is not otherwise know. It's not SIGNIFICANT nation-wide media coverage either, and I don't think it's enough to keep the article. JTtheOG (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Church at BattleCreek

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

I'm not sure if this church is better notable or improvable as I found no better results than this, this, this and this and although the current website link is closed, it seems their new website is thechurch.at. and to finish, this would need attention because it has stayed the same since starting in August 2006. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a big church that just needs sourcing. possible sources: [51].E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A large and apparently growing church, but not a mega-church. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I hope you'll swing by for a second look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, non-historic church. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rapidly growing, multi-campus church in Tulsa region. Doing a little sourcing on page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor. I think that I have done enough to the page to justify a "keep". If you think differently, flag me and I'll try to make time to come back and do more. However, I am hoping that someone who knows this church and/or the Tulsa area will swing by and improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH with regional news coverage: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Tulsa's Immanuel Baptist Church adopted as satellite of Church at Battle Creek". Tulsa World.
^ Melissa Hawkes (16 September 2015). "Midtown Tulsa Residents Oppose Expansion Of Neighborhood Church". KOTV-DT.
^ "10 People To Watch in 2015: Alex Himaya". Tulsa World.

Weak Delete - per WP:AUD. Local notability, as Northamerica1000 as pointed out, but for orgs/corps, there is this added necessity of having broader than simply local coverage. If there was an article or two from The Oklahoman or The Gazette that would do it, but searches at News only returned hits from the Tulsa papers, and Newspapers returned zip. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: The coverage I provided is regional, rather than local. Tulsa World is "the primary newspaper for the northeastern and eastern portions of Oklahoma, and is the second-most widely circulated newspaper in the state". This is definitely not only "local" coverage. Also, Tulsa, Oklahoma is the second largest city in Oklahoma, with an estimated metropolitan population of 961,561. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, with that understanding, now on the other side of the fence: Weak Keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harjap Singh Bhangal

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

My searches simply found nothing better than a few links here, here and here because I find this questionably notable and acceptable, I'm nominating it here. Pinging past users Johnuniq, Smartse and Pedro. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion - thanks for the ping; however my only input to this article was to decline a speedy deletion without prejudice to AFD [52]. At the time the article failed to meet the criteria for speedy, but that doesn't mean anything beyond that. Cheers, Pedro : Chat 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional and non-notable. An unreferenced and undescribed "gold medal" doesn't prove much. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Thoma

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest better aside from this and this and I'm simply not seeing a move target and improvement here (basically no change since March 2010). SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per SwisterTwister. Nothing in the searches shows in-depth coverage for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 09:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Cheung Ying

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. JTtheOG (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sha Tin District Council, weak keep One of the more significant mention [53]. Medal of Honour source is extremely weak [54], amounting only like "Ching did good at the DC, so here's a medal". Mostly it is just Ching invited for comment for various news events (eg. [55][56][57]) passing passing passingly listed passing in DC opponent interview passing. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any more than local notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found the same sources as User:Hisashiyarouin and would say they amount to a bare pass of WP:GNG. I think his inclusion on the 2007 Hong Kong honours list is of substantial importance - very few opposition politicians in Hong Kong get them. Local notability is still notability. Der yck C. 16:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangam Kumara Swamy

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

Aside from the promotional tone of the article, the subject does not appear to have received sufficient non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article on Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

possible Telugu sources

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

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "Sangam Swamy" "Kumaraswamy"

Let's get article tone corrected and improved through available sources. I can await a Telugu or Hindi-reading Wikipedian to offer input, as judging non-English coverage is always dicey. Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it has some factual material in it, there's really no way to set it in context without a rewrite. So if someone does rewrite it between now and the expiration of this discussion fine, but if not, then it can't be kept here as is. Despite the author's efforts to make it nonpromotional, it is, throughout, a piece that was written to impress. (For anyone who is inclined to rewrite it, you're entitled t but I'd just point out that our guidelines on conflicts of interest state that we strongly discourage, so it seems to me that when someone encourages such behavior by going out of his way to help, it flies in the face of the COI guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no one's taken an interest in working on the article. Searches reveal no notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Marilyn Monroe

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

There is no need for a separate article on Monroe's early life, as all important details of her childhood are included in the main article. Monroe was in no way notable in her childhood and did not begin performing until adulthood. The only details on this page which are not mentioned in the main article are the names and birth and death dates of family members who had died before she was born or shortly after; the purpose of WP is not to provide family trees for every famous person. Furthermore, the article contains a lot of false information, cites unreliable sources and contains original research. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Delete as there doesn't seem to be enough material to warrant a separate article. "Early life" bios are common on many people not notable in childhood (future presidents etc) but in this case it's unnecessary. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marilyn Monroe. Someone is using far too many primary sources and extraneous detail to stretch this article longer than the paragraph or two it need be. The fact that Monroe (like every person), has an early life does not mean the early life itself has been the subject of a great deal of literature. These facts do not need a distinct article, they need good editorial effort to summarize and consolidate. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how much early life detail is available for Monroe. I'd support if it was really detailed and encyclopedic and well sourced, far more than the main article but currently it doesn't seem to really be needed so I'd redirect unless somebody can really expand it fully.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not needed. Covered in the main GA rated article; with that said, if there is any additional info. which is determined to be important which editors herein believe is not covered sufficiently in the main article, it can be incorporated therein with cites. Kierzek (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the main article tells readers everything they need to know at an encyclopedic level. I wouldn't even suggest keeping it as a redirect because no-one is likely to type "Early life of Marilyn Monroe" into the search bar and few articles link to it (only those with Template:Marilyn Monroe, it seems: [58]) --Loeba (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Alumit

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I instantly found was this, this, this and this and this would need meaningful and convincing improvement if kept. Pinging Bearcat. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable. Unsourced claims, meagre Google hit results. Quis separabit? 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article definitely needs major referencing improvement over where it stands right now, but some good references are available if you dig more deeply into the search results that SwisterTwister gave above. There's a full-page entry in Emmanuel S. Nelson's Encyclopedia of Contemporary LGBTQ Literature of the United States, for example — and it's long been a principle of Wikipedia that one good entry in an external encyclopedia can effectively count for as much toward GNG as ten lesser sources combined. But that isn't even all there is: there's also a full-page article in The Advocate about the publication of his novel Letters to Montgomery Clift. Plus he's been the winner of several notable literary awards (Stonewall Book Award, Violet Quill, Jim Duggins Award) — which helps the sourceability, because the names of those awards can be added to the search string to help distill the signal-to-noise ratio further. So the references, and the credible and WP:AUTHOR-passing claims of notability are there, and the article just needs to be revised to reflect that better. Keep; I'll personally look after sprucing it up. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've substantially updated the sourcing, so that now instead of just one source it's sitting on eleven. There are one or two other details I still need to find a source for, but eleven distinct sources is absolutely more than sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to User:Bearcat's edits. LaMona (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks to be enough to pass WP:BIO, considering the points raised by Bearcat and my own search. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lind-Waldock

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

Questionably notable and improvable and the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and this has existed with not much change since January 2006. Pinging Bjones, Orangemike and Dank. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article still reads like an ad or PR release. If the company merits an article it would be better to start over from square one.Bjones (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it may have started as a press release, but, as it says, the firm is bankrupt. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Strip (comics)

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

There's simply not much here and considering it seems no longer existent, there's nothing to suggest better improvement with the best my searches finding this including one PR from 2006 and with that said, this has not changed much since starting in April 2006. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this Guardian bit, apparently when issue 1 came out [59] (perhaps the PR news release caught the attention of one writer). But it is a single source, light on coverage of the magazine itself (understandable given it was only a week old), and not sufficient in itself to establish notability per WP:GNG. Unless more sources can be found, this article should be deleted. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Javadekar

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

Seemingly non-notable with my searches finding nothing obviously good aside from this and this. Pinging Hekerui and J04n. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 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 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users AKS.9955, Human3015 and Yash!. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to fame is attending a launch (as per this). All other sources are not reliable. SwisterTwister, thanks for the ping. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Hekerui (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR KTC (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard John Brandes

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

Questionably notable as I found no better sources than this and this and there's no obvious move target. Pinging TigerShark. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G5 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Trinidad & Tobago

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

Unsourced affair. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not one of the notable pageants in T&T, sufficient info in the main pageant article. -- R45 ^talk! 14:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as block evasion. Only substantial editors are now-blocked sock puppets. Tagged for G5 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Bachelor (song)

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

Song is not a single. Album article of the same name contains all of this article's information. "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Nitromaster (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether or not the song is a single, it has subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself (see this, this, this, or this for just a few examples).

--Peter Dzubay (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NSONG. In addition to the sources provided above by Peter Dzubay, additional sources include: MTV, Radio.com. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect – All info is listed on its parent album. While it does have some references, I don't think this is enough to save the article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NSONG as per sources provided Peter Dzubay and Northamerica1000. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Rica

AfDs for this article:

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

Though the article technically passes WP:NSPORT, Rica has only three qualifying appearances six years ago, and the article fails WP:GNG comprehensively enough to fall under the section the lede of WP:NSPORT which says: [T]he meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - three appearances five years years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) before moving to a series of clubs in minor leagues is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per argument provided by Fenix down Spiderone 09:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by Fenix down, there is plenty of precedent to delete articles which technically meet NFOOTY but fall far short of GNG after time. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG comprehensively, and barely scrapes through NFOOTBALL. The former outweighs the latter. Giant Snowman 09:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication article could satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man Maid

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

appears to fail notability for film; no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes or anything I could find —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. I made some tweaks per MOS:FILM but even in digging could not find any coverage in reliable sources. It might be a funny film, but it fails inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches show it fails WP:FILM and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STATS ChipPAC Ltd

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

nn company doing what companies do, promotional only, no external sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least until a better article can be made later as "STATS ChipPAC Ltd" found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but nothing particularly outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LatentView

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

Highly promotional and borderline notability : "one of the winners" "among the top 10: "runner-up" "one of the fastest growing" ,"cool vendor" . Every source is essentially a press release. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nonnotable awards which are zillion a dime a dick. Sources only PR. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as this is a New Jersey-based company so all coverage is going to be English and the best my searches found was this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article obviously requires extensive rewrite, but I think it is notable enough to warrant a page. The company has been covered quite a bit in news articles in reliable media sources (Example 1, Example 2), plus it is referenced frequently (with quotes from key personnel, etc.) in news / media articles on the Analytics industry (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6). Some of these may be passing references, but the fact that this company is among the few mentioned by name in news reports about the industry itself shows that it is notable within the industry. - Aurorion (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources mentioned in the last comment are either straight PR (even if reprinted by newspapers) or, as admitted, mere comments. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches don't turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Tulsa's Immanuel Baptist Church adopted as satellite of Church at Battle Creek". Tulsa World.

[2] Melissa Hawkes (16 September 2015). "Midtown Tulsa Residents Oppose Expansion Of Neighborhood Church". KOTV-DT.

[3] "10 People To Watch in 2015: Alex Himaya". Tulsa World.

[1]

[2]

[3]